The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[KentVillan]

16 hours ago, tinker said:

I'm seeing the let's go private argument rearing it's ugly head as well, "couldn't be any worse" type bollox. Today on the "Mrs Spacebook account" ......."I have had enough of this strike,  I'm going to see about going private "

Lets look at the American system ...

 

 

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/medical-bankruptcy-statistics-4154729

Just on this, there are other alternatives that have some insurance / private component, but don’t bankrupt people and don’t undermine the core free-at-the-point-of-use philosophy.

We should be looking more at countries like Germany I think, and getting out of our Anglo bubble in this debate. When it’s always presented as socialist NHS vs libertarian America you end up missing out on loads of good ideas.

The main thing is society needs to understand that good healthcare costs more than we currently pay for it, and the wealthy & middle classes probably need to be contributing more into the kitty - but that doesn’t need to be anywhere near as much as Americans pay.

How we do that (tax, insurance, borrowing, whatever) is for someone else to decide, but right now we just don’t invest enough, don’t make it easy enough for foreign medical specialists to migrate here (who are essential!), and so here we are with a broken health system.

I don’t trust the Tories to be the ones to fix it. They’re too comfortable with just running it down and letting affluent patients drift over to private providers, while poorer patients get shafted. I’m not sure it’s quite as deliberate as some here say - there’s also a lot of ignorance and incompetent driving their thinking on healthcare because a lot of Tory MPs get their views from the right wing press, pub chat, and their own assumptions. 99% of them just aren’t very capable people.

[Davkaus]

Doesn't matter how good your private healthcare insurance is in the UK, if you have a life threatening condition, you'll end up in an NHS hospital slumming it with the proles. It's in the interest of everyone but those looking to skim money directly off the top of the health service to make the free offering very good, even if private is better for minor or cosmetic treatments.

[foreveryoung]

Alot is due to under investment as we all agree. But if we increase the investment in 100s billions of pounds, I'm unsure it would be spent in the right areas, as is happening at the moment.

I wouldn't mind paying more tax, weather in NI or other means, as long as it's just for the NHS, but then dare we mention the people who may be stretching the NHS paying nothing into the system, this may need to be looked at too?

 

[bickster]

53 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

but then dare we mention the people who may be stretching the NHS paying nothing into the system, this may need to be looked at too?

 

It's called universal healthcare for a reason

It has nothing to do with ones ability to pay or the amount of times a person uses the service.

 

[foreveryoung]

7 minutes ago, bickster said:

It's called universal healthcare for a reason

It has nothing to do with ones ability to pay or the amount of times a person uses the service.

 

[meregreen]

The Tories hate seeing anything in public ownership, that they feel could be used to make a fat profit for their chums in the private sector. The NHS to them is no different to any of the other public assets they have hived off. It’s pure dogma. It’s been a long term project of theirs to wash their hands of any responsibility for the health of the populace. Bastards all of them.

[HKP90]

Sunak has appointed a new ethics adviser.

Imagine having to employ someone to tell you whether something is ethical. 

Literally only psychopaths should need an ethics adviser.

Edited December 22, 2022 by HKP90
typo

[bickster]

26 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

Sunak has appointed a new ethics adviser.

Imagine having to employ someone to tell you whether something is ethical. 

The more pertinent question is... How long before this one has to resign?

The last two felt they had no option but to resign, both under Johnson

It's a pointless position because all they can do is advise and if their advice is ignored, they generally resign. Powerless position with a thankless task, designed to give the appearance of respectability

[snowychap]

3 hours ago, foreveryoung said:

dare we mention the people who may be stretching the NHS paying nothing into the system, this may need to be looked at too?

I can't imagine there is anyone, even those with the best tax lawyers and advisors that their money can buy, who are actually 'paying nothing in to the system'. But if you find them then I suppose we can suggest that they go and make use of the healthcare services of any of the countries in which their companies are incorporated?

 

[CVByrne]

3 hours ago, foreveryoung said:

Alot is due to under investment as we all agree. But if we increase the investment in 100s billions of pounds, I'm unsure it would be spent in the right areas, as is happening at the moment.

I wouldn't mind paying more tax, weather in NI or other means, as long as it's just for the NHS, but then dare we mention the people who may be stretching the NHS paying nothing into the system, this may need to be looked at too?

 

This is the issue with NHS compared to say the Danish. They have high confidence that their tax money is well spent and efficient. This is due to consistent finding coming regardless of the government. Where here it's a big political topic and you've swings in how finding for NHS is depending on what party is in government. 

Like we all want a well run efficient NHS. But there's no government who would be able to deliver it for us. It would take big reforms and politically nobody would go near that. 

Same is case back in Ireland where it's worse because the public health system is too bad you need to pay thousands in top up insurance to get to a level of NHS. It's impossible to reform without massive political will. 

[ml1dch]

2 hours ago, HKP90 said:

Sunak has appointed a new ethics adviser.

Imagine having to employ someone to tell you whether something is ethical. 

Literally only psychopaths should need an ethics adviser.

That's not why they have them. It's not because they don't know, it's to give them the layer of officialdom to screen themselves from a decision that could be unpopular in their party.

In a proper functioning Government, it goes "sorry Priti, while I think you're a smashing gal, the ethics bods have said that what you've done is reason for you to go". So she goes.

The stupid position is the Truss "I don't need one because I know what's right", not this. This is just normal. 

[sidcow]

They do need to somehow reign in the spending on locums and get more of them in house. 

I used to have a client who ran a doctors temping agency 

She was earning millions in fees.  Added to which she used it to buy loads of houses round Dickens Heath and Monkspath which she rented out to all her doctors for double bubble. 

[Davkaus]

1 hour ago, ml1dch said:

That's not why they have them. It's not because they don't know, it's to give them the layer of officialdom to screen themselves from a decision that could be unpopular in their party.

In a proper functioning Government, it goes "sorry Priti, while I think you're a smashing gal, the ethics bods have said that what you've done is reason for you to go". So she goes.

This is a charitable interpretation. A cynic (what, me?) would suggest it's more likely to used as a layer of officialdom to screen themselves from a decision that could be unpopular with the public.

"Sorry, but my independent ethics advisor who I selected, can fire, and who works entirely within the parameters I set has independently arrived at the conclusion that there is no wrongdoing. My hands are tied".

Oh. Will you look at that. It's a farce.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/rishi-sunak-bans-new-ethics-28798152

Quote

Rishi Sunak has refused to give his new ethics adviser the power to launch his own investigations into ministers’ behaviour.

The PM today finally filled the post that has been empty for six months and published a new rulebook for members of his Cabinet.

 

But he faced criticism for omitting an instruction given by Boris Johnson when he first became PM that there “must be no bullying and no harassment”.

And opponents warned the watchdog will be “toothless” as he will not be able to act freely.

Sir Laurie Magnus will be responsible for overseeing whether frontbenchers stick to the rules.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life had called for the new adviser to be given extra powers so he could decide himself whether to investigate ministers, rather than having to rely on being given permission by the PM. But Mr Sunak has refused.

 

Edited December 22, 2022 by Davkaus

[ml1dch]

 

48 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

This is a charitable interpretation. A cynic (what, me?) would suggest it's more likely to used as a layer of officialdom to screen themselves from a decision that could be unpopular with the public

Also plausible. 

What's not plausible is that the role exists because somebody with enough conviction and political nous to become Prime Minister hires somebody because they don't know the difference between right and wrong and want someone to tell them, but also wants to admit that in public by making it an official position. 

[KentVillan]

4 hours ago, CVByrne said:

This is the issue with NHS compared to say the Danish. They have high confidence that their tax money is well spent and efficient. This is due to consistent finding coming regardless of the government. Where here it's a big political topic and you've swings in how finding for NHS is depending on what party is in government. 

Like we all want a well run efficient NHS. But there's no government who would be able to deliver it for us. It would take big reforms and politically nobody would go near that. 

Same is case back in Ireland where it's worse because the public health system is too bad you need to pay thousands in top up insurance to get to a level of NHS. It's impossible to reform without massive political will. 

I actually think the NHS was in pretty good nick under New Labour. It had problems, and it was a "value for money" service rather than a bells and whistles service, but mostly it worked as advertised and didn't constantly feel like it was about to keel over.

Whether we can get back there, I don't know. New Labour enjoyed a period of good economic growth which made it easier to fund public services. Starmer's unlikely to have the same scenario, and demand is higher than ever. But generally I'd always trust Labour to do a better job on health and social care, because they understand it better, care more about it, and are less easily lobbied corrupted by commercial interests.

[blandy]

5 hours ago, KentVillan said:

generally I'd always trust Labour to do a better job on health and social care, because they understand it better, care more about it, and are less easily lobbied corrupted by commercial interests.

I would too. But because Labour is more wedded to the version we have now, so they want and need to make this version work better. So it will be better, or at least less bad.

But until (forlorn hope) we get to the point where the "debate" stops being about 1940s Bevan version v American version, we're doomed to a second rate service - not because of the people working in it, but because our society and politicians are a total mismatch with each of those two different versions.

We've got a second rate, if that, service on third rate funding with mostly first rate staff.

[Xann]

11 hours ago, sidcow said:

They do need to somehow reign in the spending on locums and get more of them in house. 

I used to have a client who ran a doctors temping agency 

She was earning millions in fees.  Added to which she used it to buy loads of houses round Dickens Heath and Monkspath which she rented out to all her doctors for double bubble. 

Oh dear, we can't afford the NHS.

A f**kwit nation collects.

[StefanAVFC]

19 hours ago, Davkaus said:

Doesn't matter how good your private healthcare insurance is in the UK, if you have a life threatening condition, you'll end up in an NHS hospital slumming it with the proles. It's in the interest of everyone but those looking to skim money directly off the top of the health service to make the free offering very good, even if private is better for minor or cosmetic treatments.

A perfect example of this is in the excellent ‘this is going to hurt’ where in a true story, a very rich woman pays for private hospital to give birth. Everything is there, caviar, nurses, doctors but when everything goes to shit they have nothing to actually help the woman or the baby and she ends up in a+e. 
 

All that cash to just end up in A+E and nearly die anyway. 

[tomav84]

this is excruciating 

"So what you got planned for Christmas?"

"Well hopefully a shelter can get me a bed for the night"

I know it's pantomime season but jeez...

 

[Xann]