|
Politicians should only use public services; Includes their families for services such as public schooling and public healthcare
|
|
Topic Started: Sep 30 2014, 07:22 AM (249 Views)
|
|
Stephanie
|
Sep 30 2014, 07:22 AM
Post #1
|
- Posts:
- 2
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #93
- Joined:
- Sep 30, 2014
|
Hi guys, have a debate I need to pepare for, I will also be judging a debate upon this topic. It would be much appreciated if you could post your opinion whether you agree/disagree and why you believe such. Thank you :))
|
|
|
| |
|
jeevesnwooster
|
Sep 30 2014, 08:34 AM
Post #2
|
- Posts:
- 791
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #84
- Joined:
- Sep 6, 2014
|
I think pie in the sky nonsense
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Sep 30 2014, 08:36 AM
Post #3
|
|
Deleted User
|
Why should politicians be deprived of the same right to spend their own money legally on (almost) anything that Joe Public can?
It would of course be hypocritical of a Labour MP who is against the principle of privilege to send a child to a fee paying school or to use private health facilities, although of course they do. Since both Tory and UKIP espouse the right to use private alternatives, on this issue at least, no such charge can be levelled at them.
On the other hand if an MP openly espouses the right to use private services such as health and education, and they can afford to do so, are they not in effect contributing greater amounts to society? They still pay their contribution to state education and the NHS but don't use them, thus leaving capacity for those who have no choice.
Perhaps it is reasonable to conclude that using private as opposed to public services, while still paying your designated share of taxes, is actually philanthropic!
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Sep 30 2014, 08:40 AM
Post #4
|
- Posts:
- 33,960
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
What they both said ^ and ^^
|
|
|
| |
|
papasmurf
|
Sep 30 2014, 08:46 AM
Post #5
|
- Posts:
- 17,279
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Major Sinic
- Sep 30 2014, 08:36 AM
Why should politicians be deprived of the same right to spend their own money legally on (almost) anything that Joe Public can?
Quite. BUT if MPs impose policies on the rest of us that restrict our choice, they should restrict themselves to the same choice.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Sep 30 2014, 10:28 AM
Post #6
|
- Posts:
- 33,960
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- papasmurf
- Sep 30 2014, 08:46 AM
- Major Sinic
- Sep 30 2014, 08:36 AM
Why should politicians be deprived of the same right to spend their own money legally on (almost) anything that Joe Public can?
Quite. BUT if MPs impose policies on the rest of us that restrict our choice, they should restrict themselves to the same choice. that'd be both IF and WHEN then
and that'd also not be anytime soon unless you're referring to buying illegal drugs and arms and worse
|
|
|
| |
|
papasmurf
|
Sep 30 2014, 10:33 AM
Post #7
|
- Posts:
- 17,279
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Sep 30 2014, 10:28 AM
that'd be both IF and WHEN then
and that'd also not be anytime soon unless you're referring to buying illegal drugs and arms and worse
I am not commenting on legal constraints. It is the hypocrisy of MPs being against something as a policy but doing it themselves I am commenting about.
|
|
|
| |
|
Stan Still
|
Sep 30 2014, 12:34 PM
Post #8
|
- Posts:
- 1,705
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #23
- Joined:
- Jun 28, 2014
|
People are free to choose what they spend their money on be it private education, or private health care, private transport etc etc nobody in power has ever said that we cannot, MP's are no different they are free to choose the same as we are.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Sep 30 2014, 12:57 PM
Post #9
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
I'm assuming that the motive for any such idea being implemented (or even suggested) is that if Public Servants (why restrict to Politicians) were made to rely on public services, these services would be greatly improved. So it is really about 'standards' and not about costs or basic requirement. What are the requirements, and is being 'minimalist' the best use of public funds? The electorate decide these matters (ostensibly) and the debate you are chairing (?) has to recognise that this topic is debated in every election, is part of the manifestos of each. Go there to prepare.
btw .... the suggestion is a none starter!
|
|
|
| |
|
Alberich
|
Sep 30 2014, 01:14 PM
Post #10
|
- Posts:
- 1,693
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #8
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
The only way this could work, Stephanie, is if there were no alternatives. NO private schools. NO private medicine. AND there would have to be a complete prohibition on anyone living in the UK from going abroad for either service. But that would be to be like living in North Korea. You can see that it could never work, because, whether we like it or not, the rich, and the poor, will always be with us, and you cannot prevent those who can afford it from paying for a service that the plebs cannot afford.
Mind you, if there WERE no private schooling, or health care, the present public education system, and the NHS might be much improved; as those with money, and influence would make it so.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Sep 30 2014, 01:37 PM
Post #11
|
- Posts:
- 7,583
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- Alberich
- Sep 30 2014, 01:14 PM
The only way this could work, Stephanie, is if there were no alternatives. NO private schools. NO private medicine. AND there would have to be a complete prohibition on anyone living in the UK from going abroad for either service. But that would be to be like living in North Korea. You can see that it could never work, because, whether we like it or not, the rich, and the poor, will always be with us, and you cannot prevent those who can afford it from paying for a service that the plebs cannot afford.
Mind you, if there WERE no private schooling, or health care, the present public education system, and the NHS might be much improved; as those with money, and influence would make it so. If it were so, how do you compare one with the other? Perhaps overall standards would even drop. Many private schools as well as grammar schools set the example for others to aspire to, effectivly raising standards for all. Much the same applies in all walks of life. Let all who can seek the best for themselves and their families, for it drives standards forward , creates innovation, and encourages enterprise.
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Sep 30 2014, 02:32 PM
Post #12
|
|
Deleted User
|
As a concept it is a very good idea. It would appear that most politicians shun the public services rather than embrace them themselves. The only problem with this idea is that politicians would never accept it and the reason why they would not accept it is as obvious as it is disconcerting.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Sep 30 2014, 03:18 PM
Post #13
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
Standards in public services, most essentially education, health care, and policing (security), reflect societies needs, or should do. For a country that aspires to be one of the worlds leaders (the best) in innovation, development, and industry, having a 'minimalist' attitude to spending on these is ridiculous - and yet we have experienced this least spend ideology too often. We cannot be world leaders when our eduction system lags behind others - others like Korea. Many of societies problems can be addressed by improving these standards, and as has been already told - if public services were better, then the there is less incentive for any to go private or elsewhere. Countries like Sweden where the quality of life is rated highest have extensive public services. p.s. do include the environment (and public transport) as part of the argument.
Edited by Affa, Sep 30 2014, 03:19 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Sep 30 2014, 04:41 PM
Post #14
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- gansao
- Sep 30 2014, 02:32 PM
As a concept it is a very good idea. It would appear that most politicians shun the public services rather than embrace them themselves. The only problem with this idea is that politicians would never accept it and the reason why they would not accept it is as obvious as it is disconcerting. But is your claim even true? I am sure they do not need welfare benefits and their Public Sector stipend is very much of the gold plated variety. They use the Police, but based on recent experience have to take care. So it boils down to the NHS and education. Well Cameron and many others use the NHs and let's be honest who, if they had the money, would inflict State education on their offspring?
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Sep 30 2014, 04:55 PM
Post #15
|
|
Deleted User
|
- RJD
- Sep 30 2014, 04:41 PM
- gansao
- Sep 30 2014, 02:32 PM
As a concept it is a very good idea. It would appear that most politicians shun the public services rather than embrace them themselves. The only problem with this idea is that politicians would never accept it and the reason why they would not accept it is as obvious as it is disconcerting.
But is your claim even true? I am sure they do not need welfare benefits and their Public Sector stipend is very much of the gold plated variety. They use the Police, but based on recent experience have to take care. So it boils down to the NHS and education. Well Cameron and many others use the NHs and let's be honest who, if they had the money, would inflict State education on their offspring?
Yes their wages are high and the expenses are plenty, one may say that they get welfare with knobs on regarding expenses . NHS and education , (especially education) is the public services they shun and this tends to make them remote from the public. I would like to see Mr Cameron waiting in his local doctors surgery , waiting a fortnight for an appointment or waiting in A&E for a few hours if he broke his finger. Also if public education is so bad then it should be imposed on MPs offspring forthwith As for the police, I doubt that they get the same appalling service that the general public get but that is speculation. The point is that MPs may get to use most of the public services but it would be naive to believe they get the same level of service as the rest of us.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Sep 30 2014, 06:18 PM
Post #16
|
- Posts:
- 7,583
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- gansao
- Sep 30 2014, 02:32 PM
As a concept it is a very good idea. It would appear that most politicians shun the public services rather than embrace them themselves. The only problem with this idea is that politicians would never accept it and the reason why they would not accept it is as obvious as it is disconcerting. Do you know 'most politicians' or are you just subscribing to your own prejudice? In all walks of lif there are people from all walks of life in my exdperience, and many people do come from humble beginings. David Davis of the Conservative party was the child of a single mother and was raised in a council house, He progressed by his own and his mothers efforts. Hardly a Poshor a privaliged upbringing There are others if we care to be objective. I would include Margaret Thatcher who was a grosers daughter and went to a local school along with hundreds of her ilk.A potential Labour party leader was a postal worker. I could add Harold Wilson to the list.
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Sep 30 2014, 06:42 PM
Post #17
|
|
Deleted User
|
- Tytoalba
- Sep 30 2014, 06:18 PM
- gansao
- Sep 30 2014, 02:32 PM
As a concept it is a very good idea. It would appear that most politicians shun the public services rather than embrace them themselves. The only problem with this idea is that politicians would never accept it and the reason why they would not accept it is as obvious as it is disconcerting.
Do you know 'most politicians' or are you just subscribing to your own prejudice? In all walks of lif there are people from all walks of life in my exdperience, and many people do come from humble beginings. David Davis of the Conservative party was the child of a single mother and was raised in a council house, He progressed by his own and his mothers efforts. Hardly a Poshor a privaliged upbringing There are others if we care to be objective. I would include Margaret Thatcher who was a grosers daughter and went to a local school along with hundreds of her ilk.A potential Labour party leader was a postal worker. I could add Harold Wilson to the list.
If you have no 'know most politicians' to make a generalised comment about them then very few people would be allowed ( according to you) to make a comment without accusations of prejudice...including you .. The rest of you post concerns a wonderful array of potted early histories of some MPs that allude to a strawman argument but never quite make an argument at all.
|
|
|
| |
|
Stephanie
|
Oct 1 2014, 01:21 AM
Post #18
|
- Posts:
- 2
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #93
- Joined:
- Sep 30, 2014
|
All these points are useful to elaborate with. For an affirmatives perspective, as the politicians would ony have the use of the public system, it would make them more inclined to improve the quality for themselves, benefiting all the rest of the public service users. They will also be getting good observations of the realistic lives of the lower income earners, allowing them to make careful decisions on how to provide effective support. They (politicians) will not necessarily be taking up much space as with the raised standards it will enable the development of more space for those in need.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Oct 1 2014, 07:26 AM
Post #19
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Stephanie
- Oct 1 2014, 01:21 AM
All these points are useful to elaborate with. For an affirmatives perspective, as the politicians would ony have the use of the public system, it would make them more inclined to improve the quality for themselves, benefiting all the rest of the public service users. They will also be getting good observations of the realistic lives of the lower income earners, allowing them to make careful decisions on how to provide effective support. They (politicians) will not necessarily be taking up much space as with the raised standards it will enable the development of more space for those in need. I do not think it is necessary to use such a service to determine how good or bad it is, however, we should expect that Civil Service Bigwigs often hide the extent of failure from Ministers. In our open and liberal Capitalist society it goes against the grain to make the use of such services compulsory, you could right this into their contracts of employment but I fear that the brightest and the best would shun such and as a consequence we would see our Civil Service and maybe Politics dumbed down even further if that is at all possible.
|
|
|
| |
|
johnofgwent
|
Oct 1 2014, 07:35 AM
Post #20
|
- Posts:
- 7,075
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Jun 26, 2014
|
- Major Sinic
- Sep 30 2014, 08:36 AM
Why should politicians be deprived of the same right to spend their own money legally on (almost) anything that Joe Public can?
It would of course be hypocritical of a Labour MP who is against the principle of privilege to send a child to a fee paying school or to use private health facilities, although of course they do. Since both Tory and UKIP espouse the right to use private alternatives, on this issue at least, no such charge can be levelled at them.
On the other hand if an MP openly espouses the right to use private services such as health and education, and they can afford to do so, are they not in effect contributing greater amounts to society? They still pay their contribution to state education and the NHS but don't use them, thus leaving capacity for those who have no choice.
Perhaps it is reasonable to conclude that using private as opposed to public services, while still paying your designated share of taxes, is actually philanthropic! Well Major, my best response to you is to ask you to think back ...
In the wake of the 2005 Tube Bombings Tony Blair and all his cronies were up there urging the people of Britain, and the people who live and work in London in particular, to go about their daily lives, offering themselves up as targets for the slaughter, while they, the politicians, continued to ride around in their bullet proof and bomb proof ministerial limousines ...
I would ask you to consider the motives of the woman now styling herself Baroness Crosby who as plain Shirley Williams conspired with others to deprive me of the opportunity to benefit from a grammar school education gained through my success at the eleven plus while she herself arranged to have her nearest and dearest privately educated lest they suffer and fail in the environment she planned for the children of the common man.
I contend that this pursuit of what amounts to a policy of "apartheid", the denial of access on merit to services perceived rightly or wrongly as "elite", and the preservation of those facilities and services to the political classes and their wealthy friends, that provides the greatest argument in favour of the motion that those who seek to control and restrict that which is available to the ordinary man and woman in the street should be forced to endure it with them.
I see this as an extension of my views on our "defence" policy. I have oft said on here and elsewhere that I do not believe in conscription, with one very, very important exception. I believe every politician elected to office should have to endure, throughout their time in office, the immediate conscription of a daughter, granddaughter or niece of military age - and more than one of possible - into a part of the british army destined to form a front line unit. I do not care in what capacity they serve while so conscripted, for the purpose in being conscripted is to focus the mind of that said elected politician upon the fact that a vote sending our forces into combat will mean one of their nearest and dearest being at equal rick of coming home in bits in a box, or not at all.
In the sort of democracy I would wish for, there would be no need for such draconian measures for it would be a fact beyond dispute that no politician would ever act to impose upon the rights and freedoms of the citizen except where the need was absolute, the consequence of inaction dire, and the benefit beyond dispute.
Sadly, far too many politicians, and Blair is just the shining example lit up like a fairy doll on the Christmas tree, have shown their motives to be mostly greed, ambition or ego, and that gives merit to the OP's argument at least in part if not in full. Those who seek to limit the scope of public service facilities and then use or abuse their power wealth and influence to evade those limite should he exposed for it.
|
|
|
| |
|
johnofgwent
|
Oct 1 2014, 07:58 AM
Post #21
|
- Posts:
- 7,075
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Jun 26, 2014
|
- RJD
- Sep 30 2014, 04:41 PM
- gansao
- Sep 30 2014, 02:32 PM
As a concept it is a very good idea. It would appear that most politicians shun the public services rather than embrace them themselves. The only problem with this idea is that politicians would never accept it and the reason why they would not accept it is as obvious as it is disconcerting.
But is your claim even true? I am sure they do not need welfare benefits and their Public Sector stipend is very much of the gold plated variety. They use the Police, but based on recent experience have to take care. So it boils down to the NHS and education. Well Cameron and many others use the NHs and let's be honest who, if they had the money, would inflict State education on their offspring? Well, on the matter of the NHS, Cameron and Brown found themselves standing pretty much exactly where both my brother and I have separately stood in the past (and so have many others). Their money and influence got them just as far as my research and training - nowhere. The grim reaper handed out little white boxes in the 20th century with the same resolve and dispassion he did in every century before and will continue to do so. And maybe it is a good thing that it actually makes me feel "dirty" to think of "celebrating" the fact they both know just how it feels.
But I bet they don't have to wait two years fvor a bloody cataract operation.
And as I have pointed out, the state education I SHOULD have got was a bloody sight better than what I was handed out, and I have Labour Party dogma and bucket mouthed cabinet ministers and their devotees to thank for it.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Oct 1 2014, 06:47 PM
Post #22
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- johnofgwent
- Oct 1 2014, 07:58 AM
- RJD
- Sep 30 2014, 04:41 PM
- gansao
- Sep 30 2014, 02:32 PM
As a concept it is a very good idea. It would appear that most politicians shun the public services rather than embrace them themselves. The only problem with this idea is that politicians would never accept it and the reason why they would not accept it is as obvious as it is disconcerting.
But is your claim even true? I am sure they do not need welfare benefits and their Public Sector stipend is very much of the gold plated variety. They use the Police, but based on recent experience have to take care. So it boils down to the NHS and education. Well Cameron and many others use the NHs and let's be honest who, if they had the money, would inflict State education on their offspring?
Well, on the matter of the NHS, Cameron and Brown found themselves standing pretty much exactly where both my brother and I have separately stood in the past (and so have many others). Their money and influence got them just as far as my research and training - nowhere. The grim reaper handed out little white boxes in the 20th century with the same resolve and dispassion he did in every century before and will continue to do so. And maybe it is a good thing that it actually makes me feel "dirty" to think of "celebrating" the fact they both know just how it feels. But I bet they don't have to wait two years fvor a bloody cataract operation. And as I have pointed out, the state education I SHOULD have got was a bloody sight better than what I was handed out, and I have Labour Party dogma and bucket mouthed cabinet ministers and their devotees to thank for it. Tomorrow my wife's cousin will have her Gallbladder removed by key-hole surgery in the private sector paid for by the NHS. First class treatment, only waited a few weeks and has had a myriad of pre-op tests to confirm she is sufficiently fir and bug free. On Saturday one of the finest pair of hands in the land with his extensive team will deal with my problem, in an NHS facility with all functions and staff paid for by my private insurance, only the after-care is in a private ward with a GP on call, in the ward, 24/7. By paying for my medical services this has reduced my waiting by months and probably, we will see, have saved my life. Nobody in the NHS is being deprived of anything due to my required services, but the NHS will be gaining some dosh, so will the individuals.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Oct 1 2014, 10:02 PM
Post #23
|
- Posts:
- 7,583
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- gansao
- Sep 30 2014, 06:42 PM
- Tytoalba
- Sep 30 2014, 06:18 PM
- gansao
- Sep 30 2014, 02:32 PM
As a concept it is a very good idea. It would appear that most politicians shun the public services rather than embrace them themselves. The only problem with this idea is that politicians would never accept it and the reason why they would not accept it is as obvious as it is disconcerting.
Do you know 'most politicians' or are you just subscribing to your own prejudice? In all walks of lif there are people from all walks of life in my exdperience, and many people do come from humble beginings. David Davis of the Conservative party was the child of a single mother and was raised in a council house, He progressed by his own and his mothers efforts. Hardly a Poshor a privaliged upbringing There are others if we care to be objective. I would include Margaret Thatcher who was a grosers daughter and went to a local school along with hundreds of her ilk.A potential Labour party leader was a postal worker. I could add Harold Wilson to the list.
If you have no 'know most politicians' to make a generalised comment about them then very few people would be allowed ( according to you) to make a comment without accusations of prejudice...including you .. The rest of you post concerns a wonderful array of potted early histories of some MPs that allude to a strawman argument but never quite make an argument at all. Your welcome to fault and critisise those politicians who, with proof, are open to being faulted or critisised , but generalising and tarring all with the same brush when many are well meaning , hard working and well intended, and conduct their office in an irreproachable manner, is unfair.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tigger
|
Oct 1 2014, 10:06 PM
Post #24
|
- Posts:
- 20,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- RJD
- Oct 1 2014, 06:47 PM
- johnofgwent
- Oct 1 2014, 07:58 AM
- RJD
- Sep 30 2014, 04:41 PM
- gansao
- Sep 30 2014, 02:32 PM
As a concept it is a very good idea. It would appear that most politicians shun the public services rather than embrace them themselves. The only problem with this idea is that politicians would never accept it and the reason why they would not accept it is as obvious as it is disconcerting.
But is your claim even true? I am sure they do not need welfare benefits and their Public Sector stipend is very much of the gold plated variety. They use the Police, but based on recent experience have to take care. So it boils down to the NHS and education. Well Cameron and many others use the NHs and let's be honest who, if they had the money, would inflict State education on their offspring?
Well, on the matter of the NHS, Cameron and Brown found themselves standing pretty much exactly where both my brother and I have separately stood in the past (and so have many others). Their money and influence got them just as far as my research and training - nowhere. The grim reaper handed out little white boxes in the 20th century with the same resolve and dispassion he did in every century before and will continue to do so. And maybe it is a good thing that it actually makes me feel "dirty" to think of "celebrating" the fact they both know just how it feels. But I bet they don't have to wait two years fvor a bloody cataract operation. And as I have pointed out, the state education I SHOULD have got was a bloody sight better than what I was handed out, and I have Labour Party dogma and bucket mouthed cabinet ministers and their devotees to thank for it.
Tomorrow my wife's cousin will have her Gallbladder removed by key-hole surgery in the private sector paid for by the NHS. First class treatment, only waited a few weeks and has had a myriad of pre-op tests to confirm she is sufficiently fir and bug free. On Saturday one of the finest pair of hands in the land with his extensive team will deal with my problem, in an NHS facility with all functions and staff paid for by my private insurance, only the after-care is in a private ward with a GP on call, in the ward, 24/7. By paying for my medical services this has reduced my waiting by months and probably, we will see, have saved my life. Nobody in the NHS is being deprived of anything due to my required services, but the NHS will be gaining some dosh, so will the individuals. And you know all this for a fact do you?
Sounds more like opinion to me.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Oct 1 2014, 10:07 PM
Post #25
|
- Posts:
- 7,583
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- RJD
- Oct 1 2014, 06:47 PM
- johnofgwent
- Oct 1 2014, 07:58 AM
- RJD
- Sep 30 2014, 04:41 PM
- gansao
- Sep 30 2014, 02:32 PM
As a concept it is a very good idea. It would appear that most politicians shun the public services rather than embrace them themselves. The only problem with this idea is that politicians would never accept it and the reason why they would not accept it is as obvious as it is disconcerting.
But is your claim even true? I am sure they do not need welfare benefits and their Public Sector stipend is very much of the gold plated variety. They use the Police, but based on recent experience have to take care. So it boils down to the NHS and education. Well Cameron and many others use the NHs and let's be honest who, if they had the money, would inflict State education on their offspring?
Well, on the matter of the NHS, Cameron and Brown found themselves standing pretty much exactly where both my brother and I have separately stood in the past (and so have many others). Their money and influence got them just as far as my research and training - nowhere. The grim reaper handed out little white boxes in the 20th century with the same resolve and dispassion he did in every century before and will continue to do so. And maybe it is a good thing that it actually makes me feel "dirty" to think of "celebrating" the fact they both know just how it feels. But I bet they don't have to wait two years fvor a bloody cataract operation. And as I have pointed out, the state education I SHOULD have got was a bloody sight better than what I was handed out, and I have Labour Party dogma and bucket mouthed cabinet ministers and their devotees to thank for it.
Tomorrow my wife's cousin will have her Gallbladder removed by key-hole surgery in the private sector paid for by the NHS. First class treatment, only waited a few weeks and has had a myriad of pre-op tests to confirm she is sufficiently fir and bug free. On Saturday one of the finest pair of hands in the land with his extensive team will deal with my problem, in an NHS facility with all functions and staff paid for by my private insurance, only the after-care is in a private ward with a GP on call, in the ward, 24/7. By paying for my medical services this has reduced my waiting by months and probably, we will see, have saved my life. Nobody in the NHS is being deprived of anything due to my required services, but the NHS will be gaining some dosh, so will the individuals. Best wishes on a succesful outcome. You could add that you are freeing up a place on the NHS waiting list for someone else to be treated a little earlier. It is a win win situation for everybody.
|
|
|
| |
|
jeevesnwooster
|
Oct 1 2014, 10:13 PM
Post #26
|
- Posts:
- 791
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #84
- Joined:
- Sep 6, 2014
|
To RJD, as you'd say "But is your claim even true? " in response to "Nobody in the NHS is being deprived of anything due to my required services, but the NHS will be gaining some dosh, so will the individuals. "
The fact is that the government measure NHS performance, if someone goes private after waiting it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect that the government will use it as a stick to beat the local health service with (they will find any insane excuse to close hospitals and privatise healthcare).
Soon we will have a private health system where there is no public option, just watch your insurance premiums go up, you will be sorry
|
|
|
| |
|
jeevesnwooster
|
Oct 1 2014, 10:16 PM
Post #27
|
- Posts:
- 791
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #84
- Joined:
- Sep 6, 2014
|
- johnofgwent
- Oct 1 2014, 07:35 AM
- Major Sinic
- Sep 30 2014, 08:36 AM
Why should politicians be deprived of the same right to spend their own money legally on (almost) anything that Joe Public can?
It would of course be hypocritical of a Labour MP who is against the principle of privilege to send a child to a fee paying school or to use private health facilities, although of course they do. Since both Tory and UKIP espouse the right to use private alternatives, on this issue at least, no such charge can be levelled at them.
On the other hand if an MP openly espouses the right to use private services such as health and education, and they can afford to do so, are they not in effect contributing greater amounts to society? They still pay their contribution to state education and the NHS but don't use them, thus leaving capacity for those who have no choice.
Perhaps it is reasonable to conclude that using private as opposed to public services, while still paying your designated share of taxes, is actually philanthropic!
Well Major, my best response to you is to ask you to think back ... In the wake of the 2005 Tube Bombings Tony Blair and all his cronies were up there urging the people of Britain, and the people who live and work in London in particular, to go about their daily lives, offering themselves up as targets for the slaughter, while they, the politicians, continued to ride around in their bullet proof and bomb proof ministerial limousines ... I would ask you to consider the motives of the woman now styling herself Baroness Crosby who as plain Shirley Williams conspired with others to deprive me of the opportunity to benefit from a grammar school education gained through my success at the eleven plus while she herself arranged to have her nearest and dearest privately educated lest they suffer and fail in the environment she planned for the children of the common man. I contend that this pursuit of what amounts to a policy of "apartheid", the denial of access on merit to services perceived rightly or wrongly as "elite", and the preservation of those facilities and services to the political classes and their wealthy friends, that provides the greatest argument in favour of the motion that those who seek to control and restrict that which is available to the ordinary man and woman in the street should be forced to endure it with them. I see this as an extension of my views on our "defence" policy. I have oft said on here and elsewhere that I do not believe in conscription, with one very, very important exception. I believe every politician elected to office should have to endure, throughout their time in office, the immediate conscription of a daughter, granddaughter or niece of military age - and more than one of possible - into a part of the british army destined to form a front line unit. I do not care in what capacity they serve while so conscripted, for the purpose in being conscripted is to focus the mind of that said elected politician upon the fact that a vote sending our forces into combat will mean one of their nearest and dearest being at equal rick of coming home in bits in a box, or not at all. In the sort of democracy I would wish for, there would be no need for such draconian measures for it would be a fact beyond dispute that no politician would ever act to impose upon the rights and freedoms of the citizen except where the need was absolute, the consequence of inaction dire, and the benefit beyond dispute. Sadly, far too many politicians, and Blair is just the shining example lit up like a fairy doll on the Christmas tree, have shown their motives to be mostly greed, ambition or ego, and that gives merit to the OP's argument at least in part if not in full. Those who seek to limit the scope of public service facilities and then use or abuse their power wealth and influence to evade those limite should he exposed for it. As usual an excellent post and irrefutable point well made
I wonder how many defend the privileges of politicians to drive around in bullet-proof cars?
It's all theoretical and pie in the sky sadly, none of the politicians will listen to a word we say..unless we do something to make them, but that's another discussion entirely..
|
|
|
| |
|
Tigger
|
Oct 1 2014, 10:20 PM
Post #28
|
- Posts:
- 20,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Tytoalba
- Oct 1 2014, 10:07 PM
- RJD
- Oct 1 2014, 06:47 PM
- johnofgwent
- Oct 1 2014, 07:58 AM
- RJD
- Sep 30 2014, 04:41 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Well, on the matter of the NHS, Cameron and Brown found themselves standing pretty much exactly where both my brother and I have separately stood in the past (and so have many others). Their money and influence got them just as far as my research and training - nowhere. The grim reaper handed out little white boxes in the 20th century with the same resolve and dispassion he did in every century before and will continue to do so. And maybe it is a good thing that it actually makes me feel "dirty" to think of "celebrating" the fact they both know just how it feels. But I bet they don't have to wait two years fvor a bloody cataract operation. And as I have pointed out, the state education I SHOULD have got was a bloody sight better than what I was handed out, and I have Labour Party dogma and bucket mouthed cabinet ministers and their devotees to thank for it.
Tomorrow my wife's cousin will have her Gallbladder removed by key-hole surgery in the private sector paid for by the NHS. First class treatment, only waited a few weeks and has had a myriad of pre-op tests to confirm she is sufficiently fir and bug free. On Saturday one of the finest pair of hands in the land with his extensive team will deal with my problem, in an NHS facility with all functions and staff paid for by my private insurance, only the after-care is in a private ward with a GP on call, in the ward, 24/7. By paying for my medical services this has reduced my waiting by months and probably, we will see, have saved my life. Nobody in the NHS is being deprived of anything due to my required services, but the NHS will be gaining some dosh, so will the individuals.
Best wishes on a succesful outcome. You could add that you are freeing up a place on the NHS waiting list for someone else to be treated a little earlier. It is a win win situation for everybody. Comical!
The fact that some medics who would doubtless be employed by the NHS are most likely "moonlighting" in this instance and are therefore not available to carry out their main duties seems to have escaped your gaze.
I often wonder about the lack of cynicism and willingness to consume large amounts of guff by some members on here......
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Oct 2 2014, 07:58 AM
Post #29
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Tigger
- Oct 1 2014, 10:06 PM
- RJD
- Oct 1 2014, 06:47 PM
- johnofgwent
- Oct 1 2014, 07:58 AM
- RJD
- Sep 30 2014, 04:41 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Well, on the matter of the NHS, Cameron and Brown found themselves standing pretty much exactly where both my brother and I have separately stood in the past (and so have many others). Their money and influence got them just as far as my research and training - nowhere. The grim reaper handed out little white boxes in the 20th century with the same resolve and dispassion he did in every century before and will continue to do so. And maybe it is a good thing that it actually makes me feel "dirty" to think of "celebrating" the fact they both know just how it feels. But I bet they don't have to wait two years fvor a bloody cataract operation. And as I have pointed out, the state education I SHOULD have got was a bloody sight better than what I was handed out, and I have Labour Party dogma and bucket mouthed cabinet ministers and their devotees to thank for it.
Tomorrow my wife's cousin will have her Gallbladder removed by key-hole surgery in the private sector paid for by the NHS. First class treatment, only waited a few weeks and has had a myriad of pre-op tests to confirm she is sufficiently fir and bug free. On Saturday one of the finest pair of hands in the land with his extensive team will deal with my problem, in an NHS facility with all functions and staff paid for by my private insurance, only the after-care is in a private ward with a GP on call, in the ward, 24/7. By paying for my medical services this has reduced my waiting by months and probably, we will see, have saved my life. Nobody in the NHS is being deprived of anything due to my required services, but the NHS will be gaining some dosh, so will the individuals.
And you know all this for a fact do you? Sounds more like opinion to me. Yes I do know it for a fact, but unlike you I would recognise such. I am on the slab on Saturday 2:00PM, my Insurance will be paying for the full use of all facilities provided by the NHS and the Surgeon and his team, will not be working during their NHS contracted hours. Net gain for the NHS as such funds help expand output. Oh I see the NHS has already expanded the number of procedures. I wonder how they managed this in the face of imminent collapse? I wonder how after the reforms forced through by this Gov. that the NHS improved it's World rankings? I wonder how it was possible after years of NL neglect where productivity declined each and every year to actually show how this was reversible? Until Labour realises that we need an NHS fit for the modern World and puts patients as the focal point than they are not fit to manage this service, they will allow the ethos that sustains abuse and puts the employees conditions as a first priority. Labour has no basis to claim that the NHS belongs to it and such should not adapt to cope with ever changing demands. There is a market for addition funding to be tapped by the NHS and it is getting on with it to everyone's benefit only the mind boggling myopia of the Spite and Envy Brigade stands in its way.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Oct 2 2014, 08:01 AM
Post #30
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Tigger
- Oct 1 2014, 10:20 PM
- Tytoalba
- Oct 1 2014, 10:07 PM
- RJD
- Oct 1 2014, 06:47 PM
- johnofgwent
- Oct 1 2014, 07:58 AM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Tomorrow my wife's cousin will have her Gallbladder removed by key-hole surgery in the private sector paid for by the NHS. First class treatment, only waited a few weeks and has had a myriad of pre-op tests to confirm she is sufficiently fir and bug free. On Saturday one of the finest pair of hands in the land with his extensive team will deal with my problem, in an NHS facility with all functions and staff paid for by my private insurance, only the after-care is in a private ward with a GP on call, in the ward, 24/7. By paying for my medical services this has reduced my waiting by months and probably, we will see, have saved my life. Nobody in the NHS is being deprived of anything due to my required services, but the NHS will be gaining some dosh, so will the individuals.
Best wishes on a succesful outcome. You could add that you are freeing up a place on the NHS waiting list for someone else to be treated a little earlier. It is a win win situation for everybody.
Comical! The fact that some medics who would doubtless be employed by the NHS are most likely "moonlighting" in this instance and are therefore not available to carry out their main duties seems to have escaped your gaze. I often wonder about the lack of cynicism and willingness to consume large amounts of guff by some members on here...... Not true, my last Operation took place at ~02100hrs in a private hospital by a Surgeon who is a Surgeon General in the NHS. Such work is allowed and condoned by the NHS Trust. The only argument you could make is that the man found his NHS stipend needed supplement. It was a win win and only the closed minds of the Spite and Envy Brigade cannot see it.
|
|
|
| |
|
johnofgwent
|
Oct 2 2014, 10:01 AM
Post #31
|
- Posts:
- 7,075
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Jun 26, 2014
|
- Tigger
- Oct 1 2014, 10:20 PM
- Tytoalba
- Oct 1 2014, 10:07 PM
- RJD
- Oct 1 2014, 06:47 PM
- johnofgwent
- Oct 1 2014, 07:58 AM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Tomorrow my wife's cousin will have her Gallbladder removed by key-hole surgery in the private sector paid for by the NHS. First class treatment, only waited a few weeks and has had a myriad of pre-op tests to confirm she is sufficiently fir and bug free. On Saturday one of the finest pair of hands in the land with his extensive team will deal with my problem, in an NHS facility with all functions and staff paid for by my private insurance, only the after-care is in a private ward with a GP on call, in the ward, 24/7. By paying for my medical services this has reduced my waiting by months and probably, we will see, have saved my life. Nobody in the NHS is being deprived of anything due to my required services, but the NHS will be gaining some dosh, so will the individuals.
Best wishes on a succesful outcome. You could add that you are freeing up a place on the NHS waiting list for someone else to be treated a little earlier. It is a win win situation for everybody.
Comical! The fact that some medics who would doubtless be employed by the NHS are most likely "moonlighting" in this instance and are therefore not available to carry out their main duties seems to have escaped your gaze. I often wonder about the lack of cynicism and willingness to consume large amounts of guff by some members on here...... It is indeed comical.
When in 1990 the GP at the Wolverton Health Centre, Milton Keynes, refused to treat me, saying my condition was "not an emergency" and that I would therefore have to take a day off work and drive the 120 miles home to consult my doctor in Newport, I almost crashed the car into a police patrol car when I passed out as I drove down the M4.
The copper was not at all impresed and was even less impressed when I came round and told him the reason why I was driving in the state I was....
Back in wales I was "unable to get to see a consultant for several months" until my GP asked casually whether I had the means to pay to see one privately for the initial consultation ... a sum of about £100. I said that was entirely possible, and magically a consultant's appointment became availabe within three hours. Clearly the man was prepared to leave the golf course for his wad of dosh.
At the private consulting clinic, having handed over the brown envelope (i made a point of paying in cash in a brown envelope, it seemed fitting) I was told that I needed surgery. I expected to be told that.
I was then told my options were to have it done privately at a day and time of my choosing in a private hospital local to us run by the catholic church - a medical facility originally created a millenia ago out of the religious vow to minister to the needs of the poor and the sick, now usurped to serve the desires of the wealthy, but still associated with the catholic church and staffed by nuns ... OR I could have it done by this man in an NHS hospital at a time of HIS choosing in the next TWO WEEKS at NO CHARGE apart from my option to pay for a private room.
I opted for the NHS treatment and chose to hand over fifty quid for a private room for the duration of my (overnight) stay. As it turned out I was not charged because after I was wheeled back into the room after the procedure and started to come round, I became aware the staff had a problem in finding somewhere to put a patient that needed extra equipment, and I volunteered to be moved onto the main ward to complete the process of "coming round from" the general, leaving them the side room I had occupied to fit out witht he gear then needed to wire up ...
So the REALITY is that the current system allows those who know how to play it, for minimal outlay, to jump to the top of the queue, taking resources away from others who do not know they could pay that same "minimal" amount, making them wait while the medical staff and resources of the NHS that are supposed to be limited and rationed by clinical need are actually allocated through bribery ...
NOT the rosy picture of prompt treatment at no-one's disadvantage some want to paint, is it ?
And even I opted to use the private hospital, the consultant doing the procedure could not be in two places at once, so by taking him away from the NHS queue I make no change to the NHS problem at all.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tigger
|
Oct 2 2014, 09:10 PM
Post #32
|
- Posts:
- 20,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- RJD
- Oct 2 2014, 07:58 AM
- Tigger
- Oct 1 2014, 10:06 PM
- RJD
- Oct 1 2014, 06:47 PM
- johnofgwent
- Oct 1 2014, 07:58 AM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Tomorrow my wife's cousin will have her Gallbladder removed by key-hole surgery in the private sector paid for by the NHS. First class treatment, only waited a few weeks and has had a myriad of pre-op tests to confirm she is sufficiently fir and bug free. On Saturday one of the finest pair of hands in the land with his extensive team will deal with my problem, in an NHS facility with all functions and staff paid for by my private insurance, only the after-care is in a private ward with a GP on call, in the ward, 24/7. By paying for my medical services this has reduced my waiting by months and probably, we will see, have saved my life. Nobody in the NHS is being deprived of anything due to my required services, but the NHS will be gaining some dosh, so will the individuals.
And you know all this for a fact do you? Sounds more like opinion to me.
Yes I do know it for a fact, but unlike you I would recognise such. I am on the slab on Saturday 2:00PM, my Insurance will be paying for the full use of all facilities provided by the NHS and the Surgeon and his team, will not be working during their NHS contracted hours. Net gain for the NHS as such funds help expand output. Oh I see the NHS has already expanded the number of procedures. I wonder how they managed this in the face of imminent collapse? I wonder how after the reforms forced through by this Gov. that the NHS improved it's World rankings? I wonder how it was possible after years of NL neglect where productivity declined each and every year to actually show how this was reversible? Until Labour realises that we need an NHS fit for the modern World and puts patients as the focal point than they are not fit to manage this service, they will allow the ethos that sustains abuse and puts the employees conditions as a first priority. Labour has no basis to claim that the NHS belongs to it and such should not adapt to cope with ever changing demands. There is a market for addition funding to be tapped by the NHS and it is getting on with it to everyone's benefit only the mind boggling myopia of the Spite and Envy Brigade stands in its way. It's your brain they should be operating on not your bowels.
You don't know for a fact that you are not depriving someone else of the services of a medic, have you asked all those involved? Of course you haven't!
The rest of your points are the normal right wing gibberish and pretending to yourself that the NHS is some sort of free market or business that is in some way benefiting from your presence! And of course lets not forget that you've said on several occasions you would not touch an NHS hospital with a bargepole and yet here you are about to have a procedure in one! The only difference is it "private" and paid for by insurance so to your mind it must be superior! And the NHS is a service and not a business, ask a doctor next time you see one not Conservative Home.
File under too much laughing gas.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tigger
|
Oct 2 2014, 09:18 PM
Post #33
|
- Posts:
- 20,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- johnofgwent
- Oct 2 2014, 10:01 AM
- Tigger
- Oct 1 2014, 10:20 PM
- Tytoalba
- Oct 1 2014, 10:07 PM
- RJD
- Oct 1 2014, 06:47 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Best wishes on a succesful outcome. You could add that you are freeing up a place on the NHS waiting list for someone else to be treated a little earlier. It is a win win situation for everybody.
Comical! The fact that some medics who would doubtless be employed by the NHS are most likely "moonlighting" in this instance and are therefore not available to carry out their main duties seems to have escaped your gaze. I often wonder about the lack of cynicism and willingness to consume large amounts of guff by some members on here......
It is indeed comical. When in 1990 the GP at the Wolverton Health Centre, Milton Keynes, refused to treat me, saying my condition was "not an emergency" and that I would therefore have to take a day off work and drive the 120 miles home to consult my doctor in Newport, I almost crashed the car into a police patrol car when I passed out as I drove down the M4. The copper was not at all impresed and was even less impressed when I came round and told him the reason why I was driving in the state I was.... Back in wales I was "unable to get to see a consultant for several months" until my GP asked casually whether I had the means to pay to see one privately for the initial consultation ... a sum of about £100. I said that was entirely possible, and magically a consultant's appointment became availabe within three hours. Clearly the man was prepared to leave the golf course for his wad of dosh. At the private consulting clinic, having handed over the brown envelope (i made a point of paying in cash in a brown envelope, it seemed fitting) I was told that I needed surgery. I expected to be told that. I was then told my options were to have it done privately at a day and time of my choosing in a private hospital local to us run by the catholic church - a medical facility originally created a millenia ago out of the religious vow to minister to the needs of the poor and the sick, now usurped to serve the desires of the wealthy, but still associated with the catholic church and staffed by nuns ... OR I could have it done by this man in an NHS hospital at a time of HIS choosing in the next TWO WEEKS at NO CHARGE apart from my option to pay for a private room. I opted for the NHS treatment and chose to hand over fifty quid for a private room for the duration of my (overnight) stay. As it turned out I was not charged because after I was wheeled back into the room after the procedure and started to come round, I became aware the staff had a problem in finding somewhere to put a patient that needed extra equipment, and I volunteered to be moved onto the main ward to complete the process of "coming round from" the general, leaving them the side room I had occupied to fit out witht he gear then needed to wire up ... So the REALITY is that the current system allows those who know how to play it, for minimal outlay, to jump to the top of the queue, taking resources away from others who do not know they could pay that same "minimal" amount, making them wait while the medical staff and resources of the NHS that are supposed to be limited and rationed by clinical need are actually allocated through bribery ... NOT the rosy picture of prompt treatment at no-one's disadvantage some want to paint, is it ? And even I opted to use the private hospital, the consultant doing the procedure could not be in two places at once, so by taking him away from the NHS queue I make no change to the NHS problem at all.
You've got it all wrong just ask CJD.
By the sounds of that it looks like the NHS is already limbering up for some sort of stealth privatisation, I know the French and Germans both have a sort of hybrid system that is a mixture of private and public with insurers heavily regulated and policed and with price controls in place, in the UK the latter two will obviously be ignored by the money grabbing parasites already lining up for their share, the politicians will make sure of that.
Edited by Tigger, Oct 2 2014, 09:19 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Oct 3 2014, 12:33 PM
Post #34
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
I think the example given was for the year 1990, please note it is now 2014.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tigger
|
Oct 3 2014, 08:45 PM
Post #35
|
- Posts:
- 20,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- RJD
- Oct 3 2014, 12:33 PM
I think the example given was for the year 1990, please note it is now 2014. And of course there was far less "private" involvement in the NHS back then.
I expect you deliberately overlooked that.
So no comment from you on having an OP on NHS territory then? My my what a turn up for the books, lets just hope for your sake that it is nowhere near as bad as you would have us believe.
Edited by Tigger, Oct 3 2014, 08:48 PM.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|