The 2017 General Election

[Rick]

Serious questions - Why can't the NHS work like that? If I want to go further in my car, I put more fuel in it. I'm interested in to why you think we can't just put more money in since it clearly offers good value for it.

Well, in the example of the car, the requirement remains essentially the same. You want the same car to go further.

In the case of the health service, the car is already full - you have people in each of the five seats, someone in the passenger footwell, someone on the roof and three people in hot pursuit behind you on foot. Worse still, the person sat in the back on the nearside has contributed nothing in fuel money but one of those on foot has been contributing since its formation.

Even worse still, your car can only go forwards and backwards on a road, but there's now a requirement for it to be upgraded to fly, float on water and for it to do all whilst this using less fuel. During the conversion, nobody is allowed to get out, it has to keep moving because it can't stop.

 

[Matt.GC]

Well, in the example of the car, the requirement remains essentially the same. You want the same car to go further.

In the case of the health service, the car is already full - you have people in each of the five seats, someone in the passenger footwell, someone on the roof and three people in hot pursuit behind you on foot. Worse still, the person sat in the back on the nearside has contributed nothing in fuel money but one of those on foot has been contributing since its formation.

Even worse still, your car can only go forwards and backwards on a road, but there's now a requirement for it to be upgraded to fly, float on water and for it to do all whilst this using less fuel. During the conversion, nobody is allowed to get out, it has to keep moving because it can't stop.

Complete exaggeration. The health service isn't completely broken, although some reform wouldn't go a miss. It's simply woefully underfunded. I would love to hear of 1 single health service in the world that provides better care for the same amount of cash.

 

[AndrewH]

I don't see how anyone can see a privatised healthcare system as better? Just look at America working class person who works hard and pays her taxes gets cancer. They have been paying health insurance for years but that counts for bugger all as they have to pay a large proportion of there own care. Then they get out of hospital and they are completely uninsurable they can't afford the cost of health care and can't get insurance is that the kind of country you want to live in? The nhs is one of the greatest things about this nation because it is free at the point of delivery. No matter how much national insurance you have payed no matter how severely Injured you are you are given fantastic treatment no questions asked.

Anyone how thinks the torys don't want to privatise the nhs is dillusional. The health secretary wrote a book about why we should privatise the nhs and has gone on to outsource many services in the nhs to private healthcare providers which in many cases had lead to an absolute shambles.

Corbyn is far from the ideal leader but his policies are by far the beast out of the options and if it wasn't for his party deserting him he would be the ideal candidate

 

[Rick]

Complete exaggeration. The health service isn't completely broken, although some reform wouldn't go a miss. It's simply woefully underfunded. I would love to hear of 1 single health service in the world that provides better care for the same amount of cash.

It's not a complete exaggeration, I lived and breathed the system for six years.

The problem with it is is that its scope is forever increasing and the change in population (in terms of numbers and age) means there will never be enough money.

And if you did have enough money, you would reach a point whereby you don't have the staff and buildings.

I am broadly supportive of a smaller state. So much sense of family and community has been eroded in this country because the default solution to everything is that national or local government will sort it out.

Not to mention the complete lack of personal responsibility - almost gone.

I would much rather the state did less things well than try and be all things to all people badly.

Corbyn is far from the ideal leader but his policies are by far the beast out of the options and if it wasn't for his party deserting him he would be the ideal candidate

As long as he can deliver what is promised without serious fiscal consequences. We are already running a deficit even with Tory spending, if Corbyn is going to borrow more, that is a concern.

 

[smudge]

Serious questions - Why can't the NHS work like that? If I want to go further in my car, I put more fuel in it. I'm interested in to why you think we can't just put more money in since it clearly offers good value for it.

- No, I didn't realise that the current generation of over 65's have paid in more than the generations before them and are likely to pay more than the generations after them, so are therefore entitled to much more. Do you have a credible source for this?

I can't see a reason why the NHS can't work like that. But I think we both disagree on the inplementation. If I pay more, I want a better service. I'd happily pay more into the NHS. I wouldn't be happy to pay more so other people get a better service.

On the second point, I may have misundertood your first comment, I thought you meant the over 65 CEO's and the likes still reaping in the cash. They would still be taxed on pensions and any other income - so yes, they would be paying in more. But no, not your average pensioner, you're right there.

I think the car analogy is a good one and not exaggerated at all.

 

[smudge]

I don't see how anyone can see a privatised healthcare system as better? Just look at America working class person who works hard and pays her taxes gets cancer. They have been paying health insurance for years but that counts for bugger all as they have to pay a large proportion of there own care. Then they get out of hospital and they are completely uninsurable they can't afford the cost of health care and can't get insurance is that the kind of country you want to live in? The nhs is one of the greatest things about this nation because it is free at the point of delivery. No matter how much national insurance you have payed no matter how severely Injured you are you are given fantastic treatment no questions asked.

Anyone how thinks the torys don't want to privatise the nhs is dillusional. The health secretary wrote a book about why we should privatise the nhs and has gone on to outsource many services in the nhs to private healthcare providers which in many cases had lead to an absolute shambles.

Corbyn is far from the ideal leader but his policies are by far the beast out of the options and if it wasn't for his party deserting him he would be the ideal candidate

Again, I don't think anyone is suggesting we follow in America's footsteps.

The NHS (and all private entities) do not treat the funding well. Two of my customers are the MOD and the NHS. The buying practices they adhere to would simply not be allowed or accepted in a private entity. The ironic thing is that it's private companies (mine included) capaitalising on this. Drug companies, doctors practices and the likes. Privatising it all wouldn't necissary solve any problems (see NHS) but the economic stability, spending and investment would be MUCH more effectively managed.

 

[AndrewH]

As long as he can deliver what is promised without serious fiscal consequences. We are already running a deficit even with Tory spending, if Corbyn is going to borrow more, that is a concern.

I agree on this but in my opinion the way the torys are going about reducing the deficit is wrong. The best way in my opinion is to stimulate the economy by some a medium increase in spending which then brings more back in through more tax being paid thus reducing the deficit.

Although money doesn't really exist anymore

Again, I don't think anyone is suggesting we follow in America's footsteps.

The NHS (and all private entities) do not treat the funding well. Two of my customers are the MOD and the NHS. The buying practices they adhere to would simply not be allowed or accepted in a private entity. The ironic thing is that it's private companies (mine included) capaitalising on this. Drug companies, doctors practices and the likes. Privatising it all wouldn't necissary solve any problems (see NHS) but the economic stability, spending and investment would be MUCH more effectively managed.

Genuine question how else could it work?

 

[Matt.GC]

It's not a complete exaggeration, I lived and breathed the system for six years.

The problem with it is is that its scope is forever increasing and the change in population (in terms of numbers and age) means there will never be enough money.

And if you did have enough money, you would reach a point whereby you don't have the staff and buildings.

I am broadly supportive of a smaller state. So much sense of family and community has been eroded in this country because the default solution to everything is that national or local government will sort it out.

Not to mention the complete lack of personal responsibility - almost gone.

I would much rather the state did less things well than try and be all things to all people badly.


As long as he can deliver what is promised without serious fiscal consequences. We are already running a deficit even with Tory spending, if Corbyn is going to borrow more, that is a concern.

If you are suggesting the need for a debate about what the NHS should do and what it's remit is rather than just pour money in without questioning it's value, then I completely agree. But I digress, what system of health care in the world provides a better service for less money?

Pointing out that some people abuse the system in your personal accountability argument is a classic argument used by the hard right to justify cracking nuts with sledgehammers in order to achieve their ideological goals.

As an excuse to cut benefits, we demonise the poor by pointing out the MINORITY of those that abuse the system. As an excuse to cut disabled benefit, we get all exited over pictures of the odd person who's slipped through the net claiming disability benefit whilst doing the gardening. Many point to India's space program as an excuse to cut the paultry foreign aid budget, ignoring the fact that most of the money does actually help the poorest in the world. They even stir up fear of Johny foreigner to divert attention away from the shady dealings of the rich and powerful, not paying their taxes and exploiting legal loopholes to get even richer.

The right wing propaganda machine feeds these fears, encouraging us to throw the baby out with the bath water. Many of the back bench tories, newspaper editors and alike that spout this nonsense don't want reform of these institutions, they want them wound down, shrunk, cut or even stopped altogether and use sensationalism as a smokescreen for their intentions.

Of course the left do this as well, the problem is authoritarianism (Corbyn would be a good left example of this, Thatcher would be a good right example).

In the case of the NHS, arguments of "it's broken" or "it's an endless money pot" or "the Sun said someone got a boob job on it once" are all diversions from.the shameful truth that we expect alot from the service yet no bugger wants to pay for it.

 

[Andrew]

It's my view that, regardless of how much you pay, we're all human at the end of the day and all deserve the right to the same treatment and the same quality of life.

If the NHS was privatised, people would be priced out of treatment. People would die because they couldn't afford it.

If you earn more money, surely it's just common sense and morally right to pay a little tiny bit extra on your taxes to help those who can't pay at all? Privatising doesn't even give that option. It essentially sends a lot of people to early graves through no fault of their own

 

[Rick]

If the NHS was privatised, people would be priced out of treatment. People would die because they couldn't afford it.

This reminds me of another part of the NHS debate - when people talk about privatisation they are referring to two different things.

1. The literal privatisation of our health system like the one in the USA
2. The privatisation of aspects of the health service in its current form

I am opposed to 1, but broadly supportive of 2. The name the National Health Service is massively misleading. There's very little national about it, each Trust is operated as a cottage industries under the same name, directly employing everyone from painters, plumbers, car park staff etc etc. There is very little common approach between Trusts meaning vast wastage and huge duplication in both equipment, IT systems etc.

If a private entity can operate a non-clinical (or in some cases clinical) function of the Health Service cheaper than the NHS can do it itself, I think that's acceptable because it provides better value for the taxpayer and an opportunity for the health service to focus on providing health services.

 

[smudge]

Genuine question how else could it work?

1) a private company manage the finances. They could subcontract the accounting, the procurement and investment.
2) be accountable to the public for their spending. Allow companies and individuals access to data, incentivise spending and savings.
3) teir levels of cover. Itemise spending.

I'm sure someone who looked into it properly could come up with lots of better ideas. But there is things that could be done.

 

[kris3012]

If you earn more money

If you earn more money why should you pay more
People generally have worked harder to earn that extra money I.e extra hours ( not always I know)
Why should people who contribute nothing to the economy I.e people who refuse to work be entitled to the same as someone who works 60+ hours a week to provide for there family



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Andrew]

If you earn more money why should you pay more
People generally have worked harder to earn that extra money I.e extra hours ( not always I know)
Why should people who contribute nothing to the economy I.e people who refuse to work be entitled to the same as someone who works 60+ hours a week to provide for there family



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because it's called being a decent human. You know you're better off, regardless of how hard you worked, so surely you know that it's only fair to help those in need of it who can't help themselves.

Or you could just be scummy and let people be sick or die...

 

[kris3012]

Because it's called being a decent human. You know you're better off, regardless of how hard you worked, so surely you know that it's only fair to help those in need of it who can't help themselves.

Or you could just be scummy and let people be sick or die...

Yes I'm scummy by not provide for people who can't be bothered to go and work I'd rather be that than be one of them people but u crack on mate


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rob666]

All good stuff in this thread over the last couple of days, can't remember the last time I argued the toss over current affairs.
Correction to my earlier post, that nice Uncle Jeremy has promised us four extra days off, not three , if we vote for him.
Bonus!
My best mate's wife works in the health industry as a large drug company rep to GP's...she scared me a couple of years ago by saying all NHS trusts were constantly on the edge of bancruptcy, and constantly fail to pay their bills on time...
And the name NHS is not misleading at all, it is a health service provided for the nation, there are tiers of management from the top down, directed from the government centrally. The individual trusts are tied and directed from above nationally.
What else are you going to call it?
And nobody should be fooled by the "Free at the point of delivery" bollocks.
Go get your hospital car parking for free, or your NHS dentist, or your prescriptions for free if you are in employment.
The nhs hasn't been free at the point of delivery for many decades.
I think it was free for about the first ten years, thats all.

And on a lighter note in this deep and dark topic...hellish NHS queues, especially in A&E...
Why don't they get that nice Merlin in to sort out a Fasttrack system, pay up to jump the queue, put the cash in a general NHS funding account.
Further savings could be made by shoving a couple of HB Leisure stalls in the corner of the waiting room.

 

[Andrew]

Yes I'm scummy by not provide for people who can't be bothered to go and work I'd rather be that than be one of them people but u crack on mate


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn't say that, I said people that were worse off than you

 

[smudge]

Because it's called being a decent human. You know you're better off, regardless of how hard you worked, so surely you know that it's only fair to help those in need of it who can't help themselves.

Or you could just be scummy and let people be sick or die...

Come on? Really? It's no individuals responsibility if someone dies or not. Or if someone is sick.

Being a decent human being is subjective, but it's safe to assume most peoples opinion would not include paying for someone else's healthcare, welfare and lifestyle choices.

 

[Rick]

Because it's called being a decent human. You know you're better off, regardless of how hard you worked, so surely you know that it's only fair to help those in need of it who can't help themselves.

Or you could just be scummy and let people be sick or die...

I would agree with you if that's what the welfare state is - but it has become far more than that. It was designed as a safety net, but to suggest that is its function in 2017 is disingenuous.

And the name NHS is not misleading at all, it is a health service provided for the nation, there are tiers of management from the top down, directed from the government centrally. The individual trusts are tied and directed from above nationally.

I agree with a lot of your post, but this is fundamentally untrue in the operational context that we were discussing.

The DOH provides the strategic framework but NHS Trusts (and Foundation Trusts even more so) are extremely autonomous.

That's how things like Mid Staffs can happen - the autonomy is there for better or worse.

 

[Andrew]

Come on? Really? It's no individuals responsibility if someone dies or not. Or if someone is sick.

Being a decent human being is subjective, but it's safe to assume most peoples opinion would not include paying for someone else's healthcare, welfare and lifestyle choices.

Alright, maybe that was a little too far (heat of the moment reply haha). But surely it's morally right to pay a little extra to make sure everyone is entitled to the same healthcare? Surely?

 

[smudge]

Alright, maybe that was a little too far (heat of the moment reply haha). But surely it's morally right to pay a little extra to make sure everyone is entitled to the same healthcare? Surely?

Maybe it makes you a better human being than me but in my opinion, no. Everything I've ever had I've had to work for. Charity starts at home. It's more my responsibility (in my view) to look after my own - and more importantly, myself, before I even consider giving my hard earned cash to someone I have no idea is a decent human or not. Maybe if everyone had this attitude and was willing to get off their ass and actually do something about a potentially shitty situation they were in (potentially no healthcare) then IMHO the world would be a better place.