British Politics

Debate about anything going on in the world. Please remember, everyone has their own opinion.

Re: British Politics

Postby EliteKiller » Tue Jun 04, 2019 6:41 am

UFGN wrote:EK there isn't going to be a replacement for the NHS

Im afraid your latest right wing wank fest, this time hankering after a private healthcare system, isn't going to happen

What I want is in house services within the NHS. Less private clinics, not more. Less private outsourcing of services full stop. Your attitude is, its already shit, so if you throw even more corporates into the mix what does it matter? Frankly your attitude stinks.

I don't want a race to the bottom.


f**k you're not that smart .... you just make up shit to support your myopic view ... it's beyond stupid

Nobody once mentioned a private NHS, or private clinics, or outsourcing services, the NHS would still be owned and operated by the state ... it's how it gets more funding that needs addressing ... only a complete idiot can't accept that fact

You're the sort of guy who hankers after 'the good old days' even though the truth is today's facilities, services, training, and care are ten times better ... bit like saying Highbury was better than the Emirates ... it wasn't, maybe the atmosphere was, but the stadium was a tired old piece of shit ...

It's pointless debating with you when you don't even have a rudimentary grasp of the subject under discussion ... all you can do is troll out your tried and trusted cliches even when they have zero relevance ...

Explain how you get from - moving away from a state funded pension / insurance culture to an individually funded insurance cover

to "right wing wank fest, this time hankering after a private healthcare system"

You just make yourself look an utter dick .... please, please stop

If you don't change the funding method how will you fix the NHS - let me guess the good old socialist money tree ... that fixes everything
EliteKiller
Tony Adams
Tony Adams
 
Posts: 5652
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: British Politics

Postby UFGN » Tue Jun 04, 2019 7:09 am

EliteKiller wrote:
UFGN wrote:EK there isn't going to be a replacement for the NHS

Im afraid your latest right wing wank fest, this time hankering after a private healthcare system, isn't going to happen

What I want is in house services within the NHS. Less private clinics, not more. Less private outsourcing of services full stop. Your attitude is, its already shit, so if you throw even more corporates into the mix what does it matter? Frankly your attitude stinks.

I don't want a race to the bottom.


f**k you're not that smart .... you just make up shit to support your myopic view ... it's beyond stupid

Nobody once mentioned a private NHS, or private clinics, or outsourcing services, the NHS would still be owned and operated by the state ... it's how it gets more funding that needs addressing ... only a complete idiot can't accept that fact

You're the sort of guy who hankers after 'the good old days' even though the truth is today's facilities, services, training, and care are ten times better ... bit like saying Highbury was better than the Emirates ... it wasn't, maybe the atmosphere was, but the stadium was a tired old piece of shit ...

It's pointless debating with you when you don't even have a rudimentary grasp of the subject under discussion ... all you can do is troll out your tried and trusted cliches even when they have zero relevance ...

Explain how you get from - moving away from a state funded pension / insurance culture to an individually funded insurance cover

to "right wing wank fest, this time hankering after a private healthcare system"

You just make yourself look an utter dick .... please, please stop

If you don't change the funding method how will you fix the NHS - let me guess the good old socialist money tree ... that fixes everything


For once in your life try to read AND UNDERSTAND someone else's post

You're so stupid it hurts

And yes. Right wing wank fest. An individually funded insurance system is exactly that

By the way.... “socialist money tree“.......wow. More right wing dogma.
Corinthians 15:57; But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus

Image
User avatar
UFGN
Member of the Year 2014, 2019
Member of the Year 2014, 2019
 
Posts: 23384
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: London, init

Re: British Politics

Postby EliteKiller » Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:15 am

UFGN wrote:And yes. Right wing wank fest. An individually funded insurance system is exactly that

By the way.... “socialist money tree“.......wow. More right wing dogma.


So no actual answers, just more cliched bollocks ... why is nobody surprised?
EliteKiller
Tony Adams
Tony Adams
 
Posts: 5652
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: British Politics

Postby UFGN » Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:24 am

EliteKiller wrote:
UFGN wrote:And yes. Right wing wank fest. An individually funded insurance system is exactly that

By the way.... “socialist money tree“.......wow. More right wing dogma.


So no actual answers, just more cliched bollocks ... why is nobody surprised?


Er well let me see

I support the funding of the NHS through taxation exactly as it has always been funded

If more money is needed we have a treasury whoes job it is to source that funding through the prioritisation of department budgets and ensuring tax yeilds are collected

If the government we have can't deliver on those basic obligations, then we need a new government
Corinthians 15:57; But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus

Image
User avatar
UFGN
Member of the Year 2014, 2019
Member of the Year 2014, 2019
 
Posts: 23384
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: London, init

Re: British Politics

Postby EliteKiller » Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:18 am

UFGN wrote:Er well let me see

I support the funding of the NHS through taxation exactly as it has always been funded

If more money is needed we have a treasury whoes job it is to source that funding through the prioritisation of department budgets and ensuring tax yeilds are collected

If the government we have can't deliver on those basic obligations, then we need a new government


OK so you want to carry on doing what we've been doing even though it no longer works ... using a system designed so that the working 80% of the population funded the entire NHS for themselves and the 20% of the population not working ... now that's ratio has dropped to 60% working and 40% not working you still think that will succeed? ... can you not see the blind stupidity in carrying on down that road?

It's only getting worse, in another ten tears time it's likely 50% of the population will no longer be contributing to the NHS, that's children, students, non working parents, retired and the unemployed ... to cover the shortfall in income would require NI rates of about 30% ... is that your idea?

Image

The NHS was originally designed to cost 1% of GDP, that cost due to an ever ageing population, massively increased costs, and it's own success in prolonging life expectancy has now risen to 7% of GDP .... from 11 billion to 140 billion

Your naive "funding of the NHS through taxation" statement would see the country enter it's greatest recession since the 30's .... a 1% NI increase raises about 5 billion, so to pay for the NHS through taxation would require an additional 14% increase in NI ... is that your plan?

Wait you say prioritisation of department budgets - care to suggest where 70 billion will come from? welfare perhaps? If it was that simple to magic 70 billion out of additional tax don't you think it would have been done?

To put it into perspective the NHS cost 20% of the entire UK tax take ... you simply can't squeeze much more out of UK business and the workforce ... not unless you want to become the next Venezuela.

You have to look at alternative funding, the NHS was an unparalleled success, however without radical changes (no not privatisation) it will become an unparalleled disaster ... just wishing that everything will be OK, that simply won't cut it.
EliteKiller
Tony Adams
Tony Adams
 
Posts: 5652
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: British Politics

Postby UFGN » Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:35 am

EliteKiller wrote:
UFGN wrote:Er well let me see

I support the funding of the NHS through taxation exactly as it has always been funded

If more money is needed we have a treasury whoes job it is to source that funding through the prioritisation of department budgets and ensuring tax yeilds are collected

If the government we have can't deliver on those basic obligations, then we need a new government


OK so you want to carry on doing what we've been doing even though it no longer works ... using a system designed so that the working 80% of the population funded the entire NHS for themselves and the 20% of the population not working ... now that's ratio has dropped to 60% working and 40% not working you still think that will succeed? ... can you not see the blind stupidity in carrying on down that road?

It's only getting worse, in another ten tears time it's likely 50% of the population will no longer be contributing to the NHS, that's children, students, non working parents, retired and the unemployed ... to cover the shortfall in income would require NI rates of about 30% ... is that your idea?

Image

The NHS was originally designed to cost 1% of GDP, that cost due to an ever ageing population, massively increased costs, and it's own success in prolonging life expectancy has now risen to 7% of GDP .... from 11 billion to 140 billion

Your naive "funding of the NHS through taxation" statement would see the country enter it's greatest recession since the 30's .... a 1% NI increase raises about 5 billion, so to pay for the NHS through taxation would require an additional 14% increase in NI ... is that your plan?

Wait you say prioritisation of department budgets - care to suggest where 70 billion will come from? welfare perhaps? If it was that simple to magic 70 billion out of additional tax don't you think it would have been done?

To put it into perspective the NHS cost 20% of the entire UK tax take ... you simply can't squeeze much more out of UK business and the workforce ... not unless you want to become the next Venezuela.

You have to look at alternative funding, the NHS was an unparalleled success, however without radical changes (no not privatisation) it will become an unparalleled disaster ... just wishing that everything will be OK, that simply won't cut it.


On the presumption that you dont expect the elderly, unemployed and children to simply die if they get ill, and that healthcare will still have to be paid for for them by workers;

1. How would it be better to pay health insurance plus still paying taxes to cover the cost of the above paragraph? How is that better than paying more tax?

2. Why do you expect such a system to improve the situation at all? The NHS has some inefficiencies but generally it is MUCH more efficient than a privately funded insurance system. Less administration, huge buying power and..... no profit margin
Corinthians 15:57; But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus

Image
User avatar
UFGN
Member of the Year 2014, 2019
Member of the Year 2014, 2019
 
Posts: 23384
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: London, init

Re: British Politics

Postby EliteKiller » Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:19 am

UFGN wrote:On the presumption that you dont expect the elderly, unemployed and children to simply die if they get ill, and that healthcare will still have to be paid for for them by workers;

1. How would it be better to pay health insurance plus still paying taxes to cover the cost of the above paragraph? How is that better than paying more tax?

2. Why do you expect such a system to improve the situation at all? The NHS has some inefficiencies but generally it is MUCH more efficient than a privately funded insurance system. Less administration, huge buying power and..... no profit margin


Ah ... now I see ... you simply don't know, that explains a whole lot ...

1. - There are perhaps 80% of non-working people who are quite able to pay health insurance, retired, family members, grey market whilst they are quite able to pay at the moment they don't ... why not? they all still use the NHS. Having people who can afford to pay but aren't cover the costs rather than taxing even more the people who are already paying? That seems pretty fair to me ....

The NHS has some inefficiencies but generally it is MUCH more efficient than a privately funded insurance system


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-19/u-s-near-bottom-of-health-index-hong-kong-and-singapore-at-top

2. - You simply couldn't be more wrong, the UK ranks 35 in world Efficent Health Care ... the top 10 are all Private or a mixture of Private / Public if you want a good comparison in Europe look at Spain where whilst Heathcare is public at the basic level, if you require anything over and above (about 80% of their costs) then you can top up the state system with additional private coverage. Spain ranks 3rd in the World for Health Efficiency ...

Your "Less administration, huge buying power and..... no profit margin" is the mantra of nationalization, but in reality it's false.

The NHS has massive administration problems, compared to a private company the amount of administration staff is utterly daft, some 8 billion a year goes on administration ... 8 billion wow

Huge Buying Power - Yes it should have, the NHS should have massive buying power but the very fact that it employs 43,000 managers each making buying decisions for their area of responsibility ... that's beyond stupid ... so you have a good point, it should be centralized (this was covered in the Carter Review 2017)

No Profit Margin - Interesting point, if I tell you that you can spend 20 quid on lunch and there's no need for change how much will you spend? If I tell you that you can spend 20 quid but you get to keep the change how much will you spend? This is the very substance of non-profit v profit having no challenge to be efficient means you're inefficient, profit means you only survive by being efficient.

There's no right or wrong answer the only evidence available shows overwhelmingly that profit based entities are more efficient than non-profit based entities ... if non-profit nationalized industries were more efficient you simply wouldn't have a private sector.
EliteKiller
Tony Adams
Tony Adams
 
Posts: 5652
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: British Politics

Postby UFGN » Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:22 pm

1. - There are perhaps 80% of non-working people who are quite able to pay health insurance, retired, family members, grey market whilst they are quite able to pay at the moment they don't ... why not? they all still use the NHS.


The bit quoted above is key and I'll be referring to it

I'll deal with the efficiency issues another time but put simply, I want as much as possible put back in house run by local clinical managers. That wipes out profit, and increases buying power for NHS trusts still further. I would also do away with hospital pharmacies. Theyre a complete waste of money.

Lets deal with the crux of what you've said now.

Firstly, you accuse better off elderly of not paying into the NHS. They have done. Through taxation when they were working. You want them to now pay more?

Secondly, at the age of 39 having paid into a system that would see me looked after if im ill after I retire, halfway through my working life you want me to switch to a system where I have to pay more money because I'll need to pay when I retire as well? No.

And if I dont have enough, who pays? The taxpayer is who. They'll have to pay for my healthcare AND their own

Thirdly you expect me to trust this new system with my parents care, both of whom have ongoing medical problems. You expect me, as a relative, to pay for their care too? You suggested that relatives might pay in your post above. So now you expect me to pay for my care and theirs? If not, who pays? The taxpayer!

Fourthly how about my elderly and disabled next door neighbour? She has no family. So as a taxpayer I pay for her too right?

This is complete nonsense. You bemoan tax rises and then saddle everyone with huge expense as a,solution.

No thanks
Corinthians 15:57; But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus

Image
User avatar
UFGN
Member of the Year 2014, 2019
Member of the Year 2014, 2019
 
Posts: 23384
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: London, init

Re: British Politics

Postby EliteKiller » Tue Jun 04, 2019 3:33 pm

UFGN wrote:The bit quoted above is key and I'll be referring to it

I'll deal with the efficiency issues another time but put simply, I want as much as possible put back in house run by local clinical managers. That wipes out profit, and increases buying power for NHS trusts still further. I would also do away with hospital pharmacies. Theyre a complete waste of money.

Lets deal with the crux of what you've said now.

Firstly, you accuse better off elderly of not paying into the NHS. They have done. Through taxation when they were working. You want them to now pay more?

Secondly, at the age of 39 having paid into a system that would see me looked after if im ill after I retire, halfway through my working life you want me to switch to a system where I have to pay more money because I'll need to pay when I retire as well? No.

And if I dont have enough, who pays? The taxpayer is who. They'll have to pay for my healthcare AND their own

Thirdly you expect me to trust this new system with my parents care, both of whom have ongoing medical problems. You expect me, as a relative, to pay for their care too? You suggested that relatives might pay in your post above. So now you expect me to pay for my care and theirs? If not, who pays? The taxpayer!

Fourthly how about my elderly and disabled next door neighbour? She has no family. So as a taxpayer I pay for her too right?

This is complete nonsense. You bemoan tax rises and then saddle everyone with huge expense as a,solution.

No thanks


Bottom line somebody has to pay ... if you want an inefficient free health service for all you've got to pay for it ... you can argue all you want about who pays but obviously in the end it's the people of the UK ...

You want to spend 140 billion on the NHS but you have no idea where that's coming from ... somebody has to pay ... who?

The taxpayer? you do understand that would bankrupt 1,000's of companies, cost 10's of 1000's of jobs, and leave millions of people in dire financial trouble .... and that raising basic tax rates actually raises very little extra revenue (The Laffer Curve) ... or were you using that money tree again ...

I could be wrong, you may have a well though out plan to raise the extra 20/30/40 billion needed ... so go ahead tell us ...
EliteKiller
Tony Adams
Tony Adams
 
Posts: 5652
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: British Politics

Postby DiamondGooner » Tue Jun 04, 2019 3:44 pm

EliteKiller wrote:
UFGN wrote:The bit quoted above is key and I'll be referring to it

I'll deal with the efficiency issues another time but put simply, I want as much as possible put back in house run by local clinical managers. That wipes out profit, and increases buying power for NHS trusts still further. I would also do away with hospital pharmacies. Theyre a complete waste of money.

Lets deal with the crux of what you've said now.

Firstly, you accuse better off elderly of not paying into the NHS. They have done. Through taxation when they were working. You want them to now pay more?

Secondly, at the age of 39 having paid into a system that would see me looked after if im ill after I retire, halfway through my working life you want me to switch to a system where I have to pay more money because I'll need to pay when I retire as well? No.

And if I dont have enough, who pays? The taxpayer is who. They'll have to pay for my healthcare AND their own

Thirdly you expect me to trust this new system with my parents care, both of whom have ongoing medical problems. You expect me, as a relative, to pay for their care too? You suggested that relatives might pay in your post above. So now you expect me to pay for my care and theirs? If not, who pays? The taxpayer!

Fourthly how about my elderly and disabled next door neighbour? She has no family. So as a taxpayer I pay for her too right?

This is complete nonsense. You bemoan tax rises and then saddle everyone with huge expense as a,solution.

No thanks


Bottom line somebody has to pay ... if you want an inefficient free health service for all you've got to pay for it ... you can argue all you want about who pays but obviously in the end it's the people of the UK ...

You want to spend 140 billion on the NHS but you have no idea where that's coming from ... somebody has to pay ... who?

The taxpayer? you do understand that would bankrupt 1,000's of companies, cost 10's of 1000's of jobs, and leave millions of people in dire financial trouble .... and that raising basic tax rates actually raises very little extra revenue (The Laffer Curve) ... or were you using that money tree again ...

I could be wrong, you may have a well though out plan to raise the extra 20/30/40 billion needed ... so go ahead tell us ...


Cash for health is a recipe for disaster and without an National Health Service the Private companies don't have a standard they need to be superior to, only each other and that can easily as with America, turn into a race to the bottom.

In the countries it does work in its because the Gov't are held to account, I don't trust British politicians at all, especially when they get a taste of the money.

We'll have medication soaring and all sorts because once the cats out of the bag that's it, people will have to re-mortgage their homes to pay for operations, life long debt for incurable conditions, you name it .......... no thanks.

Every decent country in the West bar a couple has a National Insurance for a reason.
Image
User avatar
DiamondGooner
SE13
SE13
 
Posts: 30379
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:35 am
Location: At the Gucci store

Re: British Politics

Postby UFGN » Tue Jun 04, 2019 3:54 pm

EliteKiller wrote:
UFGN wrote:The bit quoted above is key and I'll be referring to it

I'll deal with the efficiency issues another time but put simply, I want as much as possible put back in house run by local clinical managers. That wipes out profit, and increases buying power for NHS trusts still further. I would also do away with hospital pharmacies. Theyre a complete waste of money.

Lets deal with the crux of what you've said now.

Firstly, you accuse better off elderly of not paying into the NHS. They have done. Through taxation when they were working. You want them to now pay more?

Secondly, at the age of 39 having paid into a system that would see me looked after if im ill after I retire, halfway through my working life you want me to switch to a system where I have to pay more money because I'll need to pay when I retire as well? No.

And if I dont have enough, who pays? The taxpayer is who. They'll have to pay for my healthcare AND their own

Thirdly you expect me to trust this new system with my parents care, both of whom have ongoing medical problems. You expect me, as a relative, to pay for their care too? You suggested that relatives might pay in your post above. So now you expect me to pay for my care and theirs? If not, who pays? The taxpayer!

Fourthly how about my elderly and disabled next door neighbour? She has no family. So as a taxpayer I pay for her too right?

This is complete nonsense. You bemoan tax rises and then saddle everyone with huge expense as a,solution.

No thanks


Bottom line somebody has to pay ... if you want an inefficient free health service for all you've got to pay for it ... you can argue all you want about who pays but obviously in the end it's the people of the UK ...

You want to spend 140 billion on the NHS but you have no idea where that's coming from ... somebody has to pay ... who?

The taxpayer? you do understand that would bankrupt 1,000's of companies, cost 10's of 1000's of jobs, and leave millions of people in dire financial trouble .... and that raising basic tax rates actually raises very little extra revenue (The Laffer Curve) ... or were you using that money tree again ...

I could be wrong, you may have a well though out plan to raise the extra 20/30/40 billion needed ... so go ahead tell us ...


You haven't addressed any of the issues I raised, youve just shrugged your sholders and trotted out some crap about it being the end of civilisation as we know it. What your suggesting is terrible. You don't have a solution so don't pretend what you've put forward is worth anything.
Corinthians 15:57; But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus

Image
User avatar
UFGN
Member of the Year 2014, 2019
Member of the Year 2014, 2019
 
Posts: 23384
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: London, init

Re: British Politics

Postby Power n Glory » Tue Jun 04, 2019 6:04 pm

NHS is on the table, yeah? Yep, just wait until the next parents evening and they start suggesting your kid needs Adderall because they think they suffer from 'ADHD'.

We'll have prescription drug problem with the next generation in no time.
User avatar
Power n Glory
Member of the Year 2022
Member of the Year 2022
 
Posts: 7930
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:02 pm

Re: British Politics

Postby DiamondGooner » Tue Jun 04, 2019 6:43 pm

I'd rather deal with anyone than America.

Superiority complex, capitalist vipers, corrupt and we get nothing above average in return.

They'll be lining up to fleece our population so no fkin thank you, much rather Canada, Aussie's, Europe, India, Africa even Japan and China where deals are looked at as "Do for me and I do for you" and in those instances we a lot of the time have the upper hand.

American businesses will want it all their own way and won't buy fk all from us in return and they'll weasel in corruption, rather do business with the Russians, at least they would always be kept nicely at arms length, the Americans would blackmail the sh*t out of us.
Image
User avatar
DiamondGooner
SE13
SE13
 
Posts: 30379
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:35 am
Location: At the Gucci store

Re: British Politics

Postby Reverend Gooner » Tue Jun 04, 2019 7:01 pm

Yep, the ultimate irony of brexit will be if we leave to "take back sovereignty" and then hand it away immediately to the USA and the business interests which dominate it. They will treat us 100x worse than the EU ever have, we will be nothing but a cash cow to them and once their lobbyists get a grip into our legal system you can be sure it will be bent to their interests too.
User avatar
Reverend Gooner
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 14237
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:23 pm
Location: London

Re: British Politics

Postby UFGN » Tue Jun 04, 2019 7:38 pm

Power n Glory wrote:NHS is on the table, yeah? Yep, just wait until the next parents evening and they start suggesting your kid needs Adderall because they think they suffer from 'ADHD'.

We'll have prescription drug problem with the next generation in no time.


This is real btw

Ask any of our Americans on GW what proportion of kids in the US are on Ritalin or similar

I spent 10 years working with Autistic kids and teenagers. (In the UK of course.) Full time for nearly 10 years. I worked with people with severe low functioning autism. Thats f***ing industrial strength autism to you

In all that time, do you know how many kids I dealt with who were on Ritalin?

Four.
Corinthians 15:57; But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus

Image
User avatar
UFGN
Member of the Year 2014, 2019
Member of the Year 2014, 2019
 
Posts: 23384
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: London, init

PreviousNext

Return to The Big Debate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests