Bolitics The New Condem Government

[drat01]

 :-) - Tony I wonder if what we talked about the other day on FB can cure that addiction - it seems to be happening again mate

 

Tony you miss the fundamental point (as normal when someone mentions Tory party backers) is the levels that they provide and who is exactly in Gvmt at the moment. Also who recently stopped legislation going through re outside influence within Gvmt? So try and deflect with a "ahh but Labour" if you want but at least look at what is being discussed

 

http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.co.uk/p/mps-with-or-had-financial-links-to.html

 

And yes I appreciate that this is not just Tories but boy there are a lot that are

Edited July 17, 2013 by drat01

[bickster]

Death Rate went up under the Tories I seem to recall hearing on the radio yesterday

[tonyh29]

With regards to the NHS, I think we have to face facts.

We're either going to have to pay more tax, or it's going to have to become increasingly privatised, much more so than now.

I'm not against paying more tax, if it'll mean a vastly improved NHS than can cope with the demands of the 21st century.

Yep ... This

[drat01]

Death Rate went up under the Tories I seem to recall hearing on the radio yesterday

 

Shhhh - we must not mention Thatcher

[bickster]

With regards to the NHS, I think we have to face facts.

We're either going to have to pay more tax, or it's going to have to become increasingly privatised, much more so than now.

I'm not against paying more tax, if it'll mean a vastly improved NHS than can cope with the demands of the 21st century.

Yep ... This

Like hell, nationalise the drug companies

[Awol]

 

....

 

...Is it any wonder it's such a mess?

says the man who does not even live here ............

Always trying to make it personal Drat and there really is no need. Trying playing the ball, not the man.

[bickster]

Death Rate went up under the Tories I seem to recall hearing on the radio yesterday

 

Shhhh - we must not mention Thatcher

Well she definitely died on their watch

[Awol]

 

 

With regards to the NHS, I think we have to face facts.

We're either going to have to pay more tax, or it's going to have to become increasingly privatised, much more so than now.

I'm not against paying more tax, if it'll mean a vastly improved NHS than can cope with the demands of the 21st century.

Yep ... This

 

Like hell, nationalise the drug companies

 

The Pharma industry runs on innovation. can you think of one example where nationalising an industry has led to innovation?

[bickster]

With regards to the NHS, I think we have to face facts.

We're either going to have to pay more tax, or it's going to have to become increasingly privatised, much more so than now.

I'm not against paying more tax, if it'll mean a vastly improved NHS than can cope with the demands of the 21st century.

Yep ... This

Like hell, nationalise the drug companies

The Pharma industry runs on innovation. can you think of one example where nationalising an industry has led to innovation?

Pretty much convinced the USSR and China have invented stuff like space travel for instance

Though I was being a tad facetious in the first place

[snowychap]

The Pharma industry runs on innovation. can you think of one example where nationalising an industry has led to innovation?

That's quite a limiting 'think of one example', isn't it?

Is your wider suggestion that only private sector organizations do innovation, invention and discovery?

[Awol]

 

The Pharma industry runs on innovation. can you think of one example where nationalising an industry has led to innovation?

That's quite a limiting 'think of one example', isn't it?

Is your wider suggestion that only private sector organizations do innovation, invention and discovery?

 

No, the question was just meant as it was written.  I'm not saying the state has no business investing private sector innovation for strategic purposes ( like this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/10181438/19000mph-spaceplane-gets-Government-funding-to-spark-UK-space-race.html) my point was that nationalisation doesn't equal innovation, but Bickster has already replied to that.

 

Anyway, let's get back to ignoring the problems in the NHS and have a nice original argument about whether the Tories or Labour are more useless* when it comes to running anything beyond their own expense claims.

 

 

 

 

 

* The correct answer is "equally" by the way.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Awol

[snowychap]

I'm not saying the state has no business investing private sector innovation for strategic purposes...

But even in this, I read the air of 'private sector good, public sector bad'.

And isn't all of that at the heart of the debate about the NHS and its future?

[Awol]

 

I'm not saying the state has no business investing private sector innovation for strategic purposes...

But even in this, I read the air of 'private sector good, public sector bad'.

And isn't all of that at the heart of the debate about the NHS and its future?

 

My point was specific to a comment about a particular industry and why a suggestion (which I didn't realise was actually meant to be tongue in cheek anyway) for it was probably flawed.

 

There is a broader debate to be had about the future public/private dynamic in the NHS, but the most pressing point seemed to be the failings since 2005 highlighted by the recent independent report. Sadly OT is no longer the place it was when contentious political issues could be discussed rationally.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Awol

[drat01]

 

 

I'm not saying the state has no business investing private sector innovation for strategic purposes...

But even in this, I read the air of 'private sector good, public sector bad'.

And isn't all of that at the heart of the debate about the NHS and its future?

 

My point was specific to a comment about a particular industry and why a suggestion (which I didn't realise was actually meant to be tongue in cheek anyway) for it was probably flawed.

 

There is a broader debate to be had about the future public/private dynamic in the NHS, but the most pressing point seemed to be the failings since 2005 highlighted by the recent independent report. Sadly OT is no longer the place it was when contentious political issues could be discussed rationally.

 

So you don't feel that outside influence of political figures basically being bankrolled by private industries is relevant to any debate on the NHS

 

Nor do you feel that Hunt and colleagues tactics of constantly bad mouthing the NHS while at the same time making it's running more and more difficult is worthy of discussion?

 

Maybe a view on what impacts the benefit cuts are having on the NHS or the front line cuts (that you remember said would never happen) are having?

 

The fact that so many of these are on the watch of this Gvmt, something that the liar Cameron said would never happen, is worthy of comment and debate surely. By merely going down the "ahhh but Labour" counter argument is the nonsense because that is not what the debate re the NHS and the other factors is about. As was mentioned many times yesterday, Hunt and co are trying to make political (and idealogical) points out of attacking something that lets be honest is pretty much against what the Tory has always been about, i.e. the NHS

[snowychap]

Sadly OT is no longer the place it was when contentious political issues could be discussed rationally.

So why didn't you attempt to discuss them rationally rather than making the post you first did this morning, Jon?

Indeed, your opening comment (before you went on to castigate the 'politically motivated' - I guess that's all of us who ever come in to read or to post in this thread?) was 'Many thousands of needlessly dead patients' - haven't Bruce Keogh and others been very critical of these kinds of comments:

But NHS medical director Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, who led the review, said it was "clinically meaningless and academically reckless" to try to quantify avoidable deaths.

...

"Media reports last weekend said 13,000 patients had died avoidably," he said. "But when Bruce Keogh's report came out, he said nothing of the sort. Patients using these hospitals have been worried unnecessarily. Whoever briefed the media on that has been highly irresponsible. My worry is that erroneous 13,000 figure will stick because many people remember headlines, not facts."

Edited July 17, 2013 by snowychap

[Awol]

@Drat

 

The current government have ring fenced NHS spending, this is simply a fact. That NHS Trusts have chosen to cut front line staff rather than axing their own bloated management structures is indicative of what is wrong inside the NHS which is the discussion that should be under way instead of this pathetic attempt to simply paint one party or another as the enemy of the NHS.

 

The aim, surely, should be to have the best possible care free at the point of delivery. I don't think any political party is disputing that. How that care is delivered is the question that needs to be addressed, if the reporting on the recent enquiry results are anything to go by.

 

When patients are suffering as a result of political ideology then those sacred cows should be led out and shot, imho.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Awol

[Awol]

Snowy, no offence but I really can't be arsed.

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

With regards to the NHS, I think we have to face facts.

We're either going to have to pay more tax, or it's going to have to become increasingly privatised, much more so than now.

I'm not against paying more tax, if it'll mean a vastly improved NHS than can cope with the demands of the 21st century.

Yep ... This

 

Or we could save £40Billion a year we currently spend servicing the ever increasing national debt and take control of our own currency creation, rather than let others create it and pay interest, especially when large amounts has been created from thin air, given to the big banks at very or no interest who then use the funds to buy the bonds created on the back of this currency created from thin air at a nice easy couple of % profit. If a country can issue bonds (a promise to pay a debt) then it can issue currency (also a promise to pay a debt). The bank of England only has the power to create currency under license and bequest of the government anyhow, so lets take it away from a privately owned (despite it's renationalisation in the 1940's) and run company..Of course this would mean the easy profits for the big bankers are turned off as the second option of creating the currency carries no interest charge. Only problem is it often leads to assassinations of leaders of government that want to go down this route. before anyone decries, think of the inflation, as the currency is already being created under the current system, how could it be any more inflationary.

[meregreen]

In a survey quoted in the Guardian , of 25 Health care systems studied worldwide the NHS was the second most efficient per capita. Ireland was top. the USA with its largely run for profit system was amongst the worst. Doesn't quite fit the image painted does it.

[tonyh29]

In a survey quoted in the Guardian , of 25 Health care systems studied worldwide the NHS was the second most efficient per capita. Ireland was top. the USA with its largely run for profit system was amongst the worst. Doesn't quite fit the image painted does it.

 

 

when you view it by deaths per capita we are streets ahead of the US  ....i.e you're  more likely to die in a UK hospital than a US one

 

 

That's probably a better gauge than how efficient they are  ....