Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Ed Miliband will destroy Britain; David Cameron warns the electorate of Labour danger
Topic Started: Oct 18 2014, 11:37 PM (2,554 Views)
Heinrich
Member Avatar
Regular Guy
[ *  *  *  * ]
Writing in The Sunday Telegraph, David Cameron, flushed with his success at scaring the Scottish about Alex Salmond, declares that Britain’s prosperity is at stake in the most important election “for a generation”. He warns today that "Mortgages will rise, businesses will be crushed and the international markets will take fright if Ed Miliband wins power in the general election in 200 days’ time."
The Sunday Telegraph
Readers of The Sunday Telegraph might be frightened away from supporting New Labour after reading this.
Edited by Heinrich, Oct 18 2014, 11:38 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Oct 20 2014, 11:43 AM


ppp should have been PPP


That's Purchasing Power Parity.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Oct 20 2014, 10:49 AM
Affa
Oct 19 2014, 12:47 PM
Tytoalba
Oct 19 2014, 10:27 AM


In France they have followed the more left wing views of the Labour party, and they are in a total social and financial mess, that is rapidly getting worse.


I think the answers are self evident.




'Live within our means' ...... "self evident" ..... as one of the wealthiest/richest countries I'd argue that our 'means' are pretty substantial. That to me is "self evident".

.... Privatisation didn't deliver the gains it was told it would - does that not convince you at all that such dogma is mistaken?


[/b]

Your the sort of person AFFA that would stand on the deck of the Titanic, whilst it was sinking and ciam it wouldnt sink if only things were done differently.

Only with an honest discussion on the issues,and an honest approach to the needed solutions, by all paries acting in concert. The political adversity and blame game is solving nothing, anmd just undermis our confidence in a necessery service of need.
My view of the matter is based on facts as we know them to be, not on some dream scenario based on socialist idealism that cannot be sustained.
The bottom line is that it (NHS) is costing more year on year to run ,


There's so much here that I find fault with ..... but it does eventually come down to
Quote:
 
"
The bottom line is that it is costing more year on year to run"


Nothing you added has given any indication of what you think as the "honest approach" to "solving" the problem (of affordability) of the NHS. - All you gave was
Quote:
 
"My view of the matter is based on facts as we know them to be, not on some dream scenario based on socialist idealism that cannot be sustained".

And those facts are?
The NHS is regarded (Internationally) as one of, if not the, most efficient providers in the world.
We are a wealthy Nation, but spend less on health care (%age of wealth) than most developed Nations.
Privatisation of health care is not the answer - those costs escalate.

The only 'FACT' that needs stating is that the only risk to the NHS is this desire of the Tories to sell off as much as they can of it to private investors.


Edited by Affa, Oct 20 2014, 01:14 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 20 2014, 08:01 AM
RJD
Oct 20 2014, 07:26 AM
Are you claiming that it is morally right to design welfare systems that discourage the fit and healthy from working?
No I would not claim that RJD, but neither is it moral to declare seriously ill, and very disabled people "fit for work" as a quite deliberate policy.
Neither is it moral to state disabled and long term people will be helped into work, when the statement is a blatant lie, and all that has been done is to park 95% of them on JobSeekers Allowance with a lot less money to try and exist on.
OK now deal with the point.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa: The NHS is regarded (Internationally) as one of, if not the, most efficient providers in the world.
We are a wealthy Nation, but spend less on health care (%age of wealth) than most developed Nations.
Privatisation of health care is not the answer - those costs escalate.


You have some evidence to support these claims?

Affa: The only 'FACT' that needs stating is that the only risk to the NHS is this desire of the Tories to sell off as much as they can of it to private investors.

Where did you learn of this desire? Was it at the Old Red Nag as I see little or no evidence of this.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 20 2014, 01:27 PM
Affa: The NHS is regarded (Internationally) as one of, if not the, most efficient providers in the world.
We are a wealthy Nation, but spend less on health care (%age of wealth) than most developed Nations.
Privatisation of health care is not the answer - those costs escalate.


You have some evidence to support these claims?

Affa: The only 'FACT' that needs stating is that the only risk to the NHS is this desire of the Tories to sell off as much as they can of it to private investors.

Where did you learn of this desire? Was it at the Old Red Nag as I see little or no evidence of this.

Accept them, or refute them ........ let me witness the attempt.

I do this simply because of the evidence of this
Quote:
 


Where did you learn of this desire? Was it at the Old Red Nag as I see little or no evidence of this.



Unlike you, I do not accept Tory denials as evidence of anything but their duplicity!

Andrew Lansley engaged American based consultants to advise NHS reforms.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/nov/05/nhs-reforms-mckinsey-conflict-interest
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Oct 20 2014, 03:27 PM
RJD
Oct 20 2014, 01:27 PM
Affa: The NHS is regarded (Internationally) as one of, if not the, most efficient providers in the world.
We are a wealthy Nation, but spend less on health care (%age of wealth) than most developed Nations.
Privatisation of health care is not the answer - those costs escalate.


You have some evidence to support these claims?

Affa: The only 'FACT' that needs stating is that the only risk to the NHS is this desire of the Tories to sell off as much as they can of it to private investors.

Where did you learn of this desire? Was it at the Old Red Nag as I see little or no evidence of this.

Accept them, or refute them ........ let me witness the attempt.

I do this simply because of the evidence of this
Quote:
 


Where did you learn of this desire? Was it at the Old Red Nag as I see little or no evidence of this.



Unlike you, I do not accept Tory denials as evidence of anything but their duplicity!

Andrew Lansley engaged American based consultants to advise NHS reforms.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/nov/05/nhs-reforms-mckinsey-conflict-interest
Clearly you came with one of those Spaceships and are posting from a hangar in Roswell. I don't subscribe to the crap that emanates from the Old Red Nag or any of the Rosswell conspiracy myths. I will butt out and leave you with your Walter Mitty World.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 20 2014, 04:05 PM

I will butt out and leave you with your Walter Mitty World.

So you cannot refute my claims!
Quote:
 

NHS means British healthcare rated top out of 11 western countries, with US coming last - 2014

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/uks-healthcare-ranked-the-best-out-of-11-western-countries-with-us-coming-last-9542833.html
Quote:
 


The NHS – a stunningly cost effective supplier of high quality healthcare -

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/06/06/the-nhs-a-stunningly-cost-effective-supplier-of-high-quality-healthcare/



Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

C-too
Oct 20 2014, 11:43 AM
Tytoalba
Oct 20 2014, 10:49 AM
Affa
Oct 19 2014, 12:47 PM
Tytoalba
Oct 19 2014, 10:27 AM


In France they have followed the more left wing views of the Labour party, and they are in a total social and financial mess, that is rapidly getting worse.

The bottom line is always
'Can we afford it or should we live within our means, and would different policies make it worse or better in the long run.
I think the answers are self evident.

To make changes Labour would have to tax more and spend more and that has been tried before and failed.
There is no panacea for our current problems, and we need to continue to make the hard choices and tighten our belts.

As for the NHS, we need another 30 Billion pounds to be spent by 2020 to maintain it at its current leveland by current means.and I read that those who make the biggest demands, the retired elderly, are set to double in numbers by 2030. How do we finance and resolve that problem alone?

France is up against the Corporate Empire. These can and will do what they require to ensure Hollande's government fails. It will not be because Hollande is wrong, it will be because Corporate Business is greedy and has more sway over the French economy than does the Parlement français.

'Live within our means' ...... "self evident" ..... as one of the wealthiest/richest countries I'd argue that our 'means' are pretty substantial. That to me is "self evident".

"Tax & Spend" has, as you say, been tried before. None more so than the Thatcher Government, but ran a close second by the John Major government (who ran a deficit of over 7% GDP for much of his term as PM).
Mrs T does however hold the record for having the heaviest tax burden - odd that when her whole privatisation drive was made on the premis that taxes would fall - they increased.


You are worried about the NHS and how much it is costing, how much it will cost in the future - The Federal bill (American tax payers) for Health care expenditure is more than double what you and I pay (for a Universal service - not so in the US). I'd be very wary of someone who wants to introduce an American style Health Service here ..... the Conservative Party.

Your comments exhibit the same Tory dogma I've been hearing for forty years .... Privatisation didn't deliver the gains it was told it would - does that not convince you at all that such dogma is mistaken?




Your the sort of person AFFA that would stand on the deck of the Titanic, whilst it was sinking and ciam it wouldnt sink if only things were done differently.
You have a blame mentality but only directed to one party. The fact is that the NHS is sinking, and no party is going to stop the leak,just by trying to plug it with more and more taxpayers money The old system needed change for that was failing as well.
Only with an honest discussion on the issues,and an honest approach to the needed solutions, by all paries acting in concert. The political adversity and blame game is solving nothing, anmd just undermis our confidence in a necessery service of need.
My view of the matter is based on facts as we know them to be, not on some dream scenario based on socialist idealism that cannot be sustained.
The bottom line is that it is costing more year on year to run , the demands for its services are growing just as the population is growing {73 million by 2030} the numbers of older people is growing as they live longer. and they do require the most from the NHS and GP practices and the country just cannot afford it.
At my age I need the NHS, and would want it to be perfect, just to keep me alive,but I cannot expect other younger working taxpayers to pay more and more for all my growing needs.
Health costs by country.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita


ppp should have been PPP
An interesting chart! I am not querying its accuracy but what exactly is included in thses figures. For instance does it include private health treatment or just no charge state health systems, does it include only medical services free at the point of need or those where the patient is expected to pay in whole or in part?

Doubtless every one will agree that we must not compare apples with pears.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Major Sinic
Oct 20 2014, 05:59 PM
C-too
Oct 20 2014, 11:43 AM
Tytoalba
Oct 20 2014, 10:49 AM
Affa
Oct 19 2014, 12:47 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep"Tax & Spend" has, as you say, been tried before. None more so than the Thatcher Government, but ran a close second by the John Major government (who ran a deficit of over 7% GDP for much of his term as PM).
Mrs T does however hold the record for having the heaviest tax burden - odd that when her whole privatisation drive was made on the premis that taxes would fall - they increased.


You are worried about the NHS and how much it is costing, how much it will cost in the future - The Federal bill (American tax payers) for Health care expenditure is more than double what you and I pay (for a Universal service - not so in the US). I'd be very wary of someone who wants to introduce an American style Health Service here ..... the Conservative Party.

Your comments exhibit the same Tory dogma I've been hearing for forty years .... Privatisation didn't deliver the gains it was told it would - does that not convince you at all that such dogma is mistaken?




Your the sort of person AFFA that would stand on the deck of the Titanic, whilst it was sinking and ciam it wouldnt sink if only things were done differently.
You have a blame mentality but only directed to one party. The fact is that the NHS is sinking, and no party is going to stop the leak,just by trying to plug it with more and more taxpayers money The old system needed change for that was failing as well.
Only with an honest discussion on the issues,and an honest approach to the needed solutions, by all paries acting in concert. The political adversity and blame game is solving nothing, anmd just undermis our confidence in a necessery service of need.
My view of the matter is based on facts as we know them to be, not on some dream scenario based on socialist idealism that cannot be sustained.
The bottom line is that it is costing more year on year to run , the demands for its services are growing just as the population is growing {73 million by 2030} the numbers of older people is growing as they live longer. and they do require the most from the NHS and GP practices and the country just cannot afford it.
At my age I need the NHS, and would want it to be perfect, just to keep me alive,but I cannot expect other younger working taxpayers to pay more and more for all my growing needs.
Health costs by country.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita


ppp should have been PPP
An interesting chart! I am not querying its accuracy but what exactly is included in thses figures. For instance does it include private health treatment or just no charge state health systems, does it include only medical services free at the point of need or those where the patient is expected to pay in whole or in part?

Doubtless every one will agree that we must not compare apples with pears.
It says "Total health expenditure" which, as it includes countries that are mostly private health like the USA and Switzerland, I assume it includes all health expenditure.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 19 2014, 10:21 AM
papasmurf
Oct 19 2014, 08:18 AM
Stan Still
Oct 19 2014, 08:09 AM
.

Enter PS to tell us where it all is and how the French do it again and again, Labour did not do it.

New Labour were not handed the offshore bank account numbers and home addresses in Britain of the account holders of accounts of the evaded tax.

George Osborne was handed them on a platter (well two DVDs) and has done precisely nothing with the information. America, Germany and France given similar information about their own nationals has taken action and recovered billions and jailed tax evaders.
Your comments about the difficulties of collection are frankly spurious.
Oh dear  ::)

We did that myth at the old site. It wasn't true then and it isn't any more true for repeating it here.

Yep and he did not understand the difference between information and evidence then, or the fact that nations have different legislation so no chance of that happening now is there. :P

But one never knows as he has signed the Official Secrets Act HMRC the Treasury and Interpol will probably tell him who is going to be arrested where and when.  ::) ;D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Oct 19 2014, 12:58 PM
Stan Still
Oct 19 2014, 07:44 AM
And you keep ignoring the fact that the sooner the nation pays off its debts the better and cheaper it is.
yes, but some of us believe it would be good if at least some of the nation remained at the end to enjoy the promised land
That is if you believe there is a promised land, our politicians have made so many promises that have never been seen the light of day.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Affa
Oct 20 2014, 01:10 PM
Tytoalba
Oct 20 2014, 10:49 AM
Affa
Oct 19 2014, 12:47 PM
Tytoalba
Oct 19 2014, 10:27 AM


In France they have followed the more left wing views of the Labour party, and they are in a total social and financial mess, that is rapidly getting worse.


I think the answers are self evident.




'Live within our means' ...... "self evident" ..... as one of the wealthiest/richest countries I'd argue that our 'means' are pretty substantial. That to me is "self evident".

.... Privatisation didn't deliver the gains it was told it would - does that not convince you at all that such dogma is mistaken?


[/b]

Your the sort of person AFFA that would stand on the deck of the Titanic, whilst it was sinking and ciam it wouldnt sink if only things were done differently.

Only with an honest discussion on the issues,and an honest approach to the needed solutions, by all paries acting in concert. The political adversity and blame game is solving nothing, anmd just undermis our confidence in a necessery service of need.
My view of the matter is based on facts as we know them to be, not on some dream scenario based on socialist idealism that cannot be sustained.
The bottom line is that it (NHS) is costing more year on year to run ,


There's so much here that I find fault with ..... but it does eventually come down to
Quote:
 
"
The bottom line is that it is costing more year on year to run"


Nothing you added has given any indication of what you think as the "honest approach" to "solving" the problem (of affordability) of the NHS. - All you gave was
Quote:
 
"My view of the matter is based on facts as we know them to be, not on some dream scenario based on socialist idealism that cannot be sustained".

And those facts are?
The NHS is regarded (Internationally) as one of, if not the, most efficient providers in the world.
We are a wealthy Nation, but spend less on health care (%age of wealth) than most developed Nations.
Privatisation of health care is not the answer - those costs escalate.

The only 'FACT' that needs stating is that the only risk to the NHS is this desire of the Tories to sell off as much as they can of it to private investors.


Suggest you look at the NHS in Wales after 15 years of being run by Labour, I have yet to see or hear that the Tories want to privatise the entire NHS if fact Cameron is on record as saying the opposite publicly.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 20 2014, 07:26 AM
papasmurf
Oct 19 2014, 07:41 AM
RJD
Oct 19 2014, 06:28 AM
Seems we did make a big mistake in not slashing the deficit within 5 years,
RJD you keep on making that comment. The consequences of the current pace of cutting the deficit has had dire and all to often deadly consequences for the poorest and most vulnerable people in the country. Can you please explain what you would have cut that would not have had far worse consequences.
Well you too can answer such a question as it comes down to priorities. Are you claiming that every Penny spent by the State is only to the benefit of the poorest in the land? Are you claiming that it is morally right to design welfare systems that discourage the fit and healthy from working? As for these huge departments of State do you not wonder why, as a full member of the EU, why we spend so much with Vince Cable and his DTI or whatever they call it this week. Same goes for the legions of QUANGOs. I know a woman, with a PhD in medicine who gave up research and now receives around £200,000 per annum from sitting on three QUANGOs and she takes zero responsibility for anything. She was previously,in the early eighties, earning less than £30,000 as an academic at a University. Why is it we can expand State expenditure but seemingly are incapable of reducing it?
I recall the days of absolute poverty and we did not die from starvation or hypothermia, in fact Adolphus only managed, in 5 years,to kill off less than 450,000 of us,military plus civilian plus commonwealth. So instead of waving your shroud why not look where you think the knifepoint best fall as fall it inevitably will.
Well some of the old diseases associated directly with poverty are making a come back. Malnutrition is one amongst others.

http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2014/10/20/victorian-diseases-on-the-rise-in-shropshire/

Quote:
 
A total of 135 people were admitted to either Royal Shrewsbury Hospital or Telford's Princess Royal in 2005/06 with either gout, TB, measles, malnutrition, whooping cough, scurvy, mumps, rickets, scarlet fever, diptheria or typhoid fever.


A further sign that your beloved government has messed up the country.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jaguar
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Stan Still
Oct 20 2014, 06:30 PM
Suggest you look at the NHS in Wales after 15 years of being run by Labour, I have yet to see or hear that the Tories want to privatise the entire NHS if fact Cameron is on record as saying the opposite publicly.








Suggest you look at the NHS in Wales after 15 years of being run by Labour, I have yet to see or hear that the Tories want to privatise the entire NHS if fact Cameron is on record as saying the opposite publicly.[/quote]Quite correct, David Cameron has denied the key election charge of the Labour Party that he is "privatising" the NHS.
this is what Cameron publicly stated,

"In England the Conservative/LibDem coalition has increased investment in our NHS and treated more patients and performed well. In Wales, where Labour have been in charge, they cut the spending on the NHS and have seen a really dismal performance in the Welsh NHS.

"So people don't need to look in a crystal ball, they can look at the facts on the ground".

The Prime Minister pointed out that Labour itself oversaw a wide expansion of private provision of health services.
Edited by jaguar, Oct 20 2014, 06:49 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Lewis
Oct 20 2014, 06:38 PM
RJD
Oct 20 2014, 07:26 AM
papasmurf
Oct 19 2014, 07:41 AM
RJD
Oct 19 2014, 06:28 AM
Seems we did make a big mistake in not slashing the deficit within 5 years,
RJD you keep on making that comment. The consequences of the current pace of cutting the deficit has had dire and all to often deadly consequences for the poorest and most vulnerable people in the country. Can you please explain what you would have cut that would not have had far worse consequences.
Well you too can answer such a question as it comes down to priorities. Are you claiming that every Penny spent by the State is only to the benefit of the poorest in the land? Are you claiming that it is morally right to design welfare systems that discourage the fit and healthy from working? As for these huge departments of State do you not wonder why, as a full member of the EU, why we spend so much with Vince Cable and his DTI or whatever they call it this week. Same goes for the legions of QUANGOs. I know a woman, with a PhD in medicine who gave up research and now receives around £200,000 per annum from sitting on three QUANGOs and she takes zero responsibility for anything. She was previously,in the early eighties, earning less than £30,000 as an academic at a University. Why is it we can expand State expenditure but seemingly are incapable of reducing it?
I recall the days of absolute poverty and we did not die from starvation or hypothermia, in fact Adolphus only managed, in 5 years,to kill off less than 450,000 of us,military plus civilian plus commonwealth. So instead of waving your shroud why not look where you think the knifepoint best fall as fall it inevitably will.
Well some of the old diseases associated directly with poverty are making a come back. Malnutrition is one amongst others.

http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2014/10/20/victorian-diseases-on-the-rise-in-shropshire/

Quote:
 
A total of 135 people were admitted to either Royal Shrewsbury Hospital or Telford's Princess Royal in 2005/06 with either gout, TB, measles, malnutrition, whooping cough, scurvy, mumps, rickets, scarlet fever, diptheria or typhoid fever.


A further sign that your beloved government has messed up the country.
Wrong again I have no loyalty to any politician or party others may follow them no matter what without thinking and of course the gullible that just do as they have always done out of habit.

TB has made a come back brought in by visitors or migrants from overseas with poor or non existent hospitals, and of course ourselves who now holiday abroad more where TB is common.

Measles never left been with us since I was a boy, we have an epidemic because many refused to have their kids inoculated to prevent it. Mumps again never gone away, scarlet fever was a killer in my young days not so now. Malnutrition even obese people suffer from it due to bad diet not due to the lack of food, obesity is a real problem and rising not falling, whooping cough same as measles, same for diphtheria, typhoid same as TB. Gout used to be called the rich mans ailment joints swollen usually controlled by change in diet and tablets, not a killer

As for rickets most GP's do not know how to recognise it as it is that uncommon, and in this day and age the very few cases that have been reported in the UK are usually down to the lack of sunlight not the lack of food.




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Heinrich
Oct 18 2014, 11:37 PM
Writing in The Sunday Telegraph, David Cameron, flushed with his success at scaring the Scottish about Alex Salmond, declares that Britain’s prosperity is at stake in the most important election “for a generation”. He warns today that "Mortgages will rise, businesses will be crushed and the international markets will take fright if Ed Miliband wins power in the general election in 200 days’ time."
The Sunday Telegraph
Readers of The Sunday Telegraph might be frightened away from supporting New Labour after reading this.
I'm surprised they didn't claim the sky will fall in and that women will abort their unborn children! ;D

One thing is certain though the ever dumb British public will blame whoever is in No 10 when the latest version of the debt fuelled, low productivity housing boom explodes in our faces.

It depresses me that the utterly stupid population think the above (minus the end bit of course) is perfectly normal economic activity.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
jaguar
Oct 20 2014, 06:48 PM
Stan Still
Oct 20 2014, 06:30 PM
Suggest you look at the NHS in Wales after 15 years of being run by Labour, I have yet to see or hear that the Tories want to privatise the entire NHS if fact Cameron is on record as saying the opposite publicly.








Suggest you look at the NHS in Wales after 15 years of being run by Labour, I have yet to see or hear that the Tories want to privatise the entire NHS if fact Cameron is on record as saying the opposite publicly.
Quite correct, David Cameron has denied the key election charge of the Labour Party that he is "privatising" the NHS.
this is what Cameron publicly stated,

"In England the Conservative/LibDem coalition has increased investment in our NHS and treated more patients and performed well. In Wales, where Labour have been in charge, they cut the spending on the NHS and have seen a really dismal performance in the Welsh NHS.

"So people don't need to look in a crystal ball, they can look at the facts on the ground".

The Prime Minister pointed out that Labour itself oversaw a wide expansion of private provision of health services.[/quote]Some are not interested in facts just their brand of political propaganda, some just don't have the balls to admit when they are wrong and disappear into a hole digging like mad to avoid saying so.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jaguar
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Lewis
Oct 20 2014, 06:38 PM



http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2014/10/20/victorian-diseases-on-the-rise-in-shropshire/

Quote:
 
A total of 135 people were admitted to either Royal Shrewsbury Hospital or Telford's Princess Royal in 2005/06 with either gout, TB, measles, malnutrition, whooping cough, scurvy, mumps, rickets, scarlet fever, diptheria or typhoid fever.


A further sign that your beloved government has messed up the country.
How can this be the fault of the Government when this comes down to an ageing population, coupled with a steep rise in obesity and a population that is drinking more alcohol. Statistics like this raise an awful lot of questions."

Furthermore, Labour were in power in 2005, so should you have said Labour were responsible in the first place.

A further sign that your beloved government started messing up the country.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 19 2014, 06:28 AM
Seems we did make a big mistake in not slashing the deficit within 5 years, now we have growth based on low incomes of those taken out of taxation. So either borrowing continues to rise and/or taxes increase or Slasher is allowed to get on with the job. Why did anyone believe that growth would be based on higher value added? Not as if our surpluses of Labour all have technology degrees is it, more like difficulties with plain English. Note industry has been struggling since before 2008 to fill jobs technologists.
Predictably pathetic putrid puerile piss poor pensioner piffle.

We need deflation me old mucker, then we really will be all in it together.The government has spent billions on ensuring the wealthiest have not paid for their gross errors, in plain English they have used taxpayers money to keep asset prices elevated, the trouble is wages are in real terms lower now than in 2008, so the wares the better off would like to flog us, ie property, financial scams and and of course that old favourite debt, are no longer affordable!

Solution, remove props supporting this crock of brown stuff and let real market forces have their way, you know it makes sense.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Major Sinic
Oct 20 2014, 05:59 PM
I am not querying its accuracy but what exactly is included in thses figures. For instance does it include private health treatment or just no charge state health systems, does it include only medical services free at the point of need or those where the patient is expected to pay in whole or in part?

Doubtless every one will agree that we must not compare apples with pears.


You are right to ask, and I am always careful to compare actual State spending (tax money) when comparing to the NHS.

Medical Insurance spending etc is additional ......
Neither do we compare breadth of service, who is excluded, who is not.
Lastly, there is no definitive comparison of quality of service - other than waiting times, life expectancy and the like.

I'll go look for an answer ---- did you try to?


http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country

The figures from the other link were for inclusive spend - both private and State.

The UK spends less (total) per GDP than Greece, France, Germany, Holland. and of course the USA.
The State also spends less than all these (per head population) - less tax payer's money.

Before the investment under Labour, these comparisons were shocking - much more a damning condemnation than most Tories are prepared to accept.







Edited by Affa, Oct 20 2014, 08:03 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Deflation at a time of debt is not such a good idea its a double edged sword, it means prices may well fall and usually wages as a result but the debts do not fall they remain static, and of course if prices do fall and wages drop so does the amount of tax revenue to the treasury.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Stan Still
Oct 20 2014, 07:43 PM
Deflation at a time of debt is not such a good idea its a double edged sword, it means prices may well fall and usually wages as a result but the debts do not fall they remain static, and of course if prices do fall and wages drop so does the amount of tax revenue to the treasury.

You still haven't quite got the hang of this have you?

With deflation costs become lower, you cannot keep propping up asset prices at taxpayers expense while expecting those very same taxpayers to accept lower wages AND continue to pay ever higher prices and service growing debts! Asset holders must be the next target not wage earners again, tap the unprodutive not the productive.

Don't worry though this is the very last option before Britain goes cap in hand to the IMF, there are loads more financial trick we can try before we accept reality and take real action..........
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
jaguar
Oct 20 2014, 06:48 PM


"In England the Conservative/LibDem coalition has increased investment in our NHS and treated more patients and performed well.

https://fullfact.org/articles/NHS_budget_health_spending_statistics-28697

But don't let mention waiting lists or waiting times, eh.

Great when you do more cataract operations, decide to include stitching a stanley knife wound (health assistant - nurse), taking off a plaster cast, as 'surgery'. just to fiddle the figures.

There are hundreds of theatre operations cancelled each week - because there is no bed available on the ward (bed shortage = shortage of nurses).



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jaguar
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Affa
Oct 20 2014, 08:37 PM
jaguar
Oct 20 2014, 06:48 PM


"In England the Conservative/LibDem coalition has increased investment in our NHS and treated more patients and performed well.

https://fullfact.org/articles/NHS_budget_health_spending_statistics-28697

But don't let mention waiting lists or waiting times, eh.

Great when you do more cataract operations, decide to include stitching a stanley knife wound (health assistant - nurse), taking off a plaster cast, as 'surgery'. just to fiddle the figures.

There are hundreds of theatre operations cancelled each week - because there is no bed available on the ward (bed shortage = shortage of nurses).



Next you will tell us Labour never fiddled the figures, never cancelled operations, and South Staffs that was responsible for the many deaths, and all the other hospitals that came under investigation is all Tory propaganda.

NHS safe in Labour hands, don't make me laugh. !jk! !jk!
Edited by jaguar, Oct 20 2014, 10:41 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Affa
Oct 20 2014, 07:43 PM
Major Sinic
Oct 20 2014, 05:59 PM
I am not querying its accuracy but what exactly is included in thses figures. For instance does it include private health treatment or just no charge state health systems, does it include only medical services free at the point of need or those where the patient is expected to pay in whole or in part?

Doubtless every one will agree that we must not compare apples with pears.


You are right to ask, and I am always careful to compare actual State spending (tax money) when comparing to the NHS.

Medical Insurance spending etc is additional ......
Neither do we compare breadth of service, who is excluded, who is not.
Lastly, there is no definitive comparison of quality of service - other than waiting times, life expectancy and the like.

I'll go look for an answer ---- did you try to?


http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country

The figures from the other link were for inclusive spend - both private and State.

The UK spends less (total) per GDP than Greece, France, Germany, Holland. and of course the USA.
The State also spends less than all these (per head population) - less tax payer's money.

Before the investment under Labour, these comparisons were shocking - much more a damning condemnation than most Tories are prepared to accept.







Thank you for that. No I haven't yet sought a more detailed breakdown of figures.

However there is no doubt in my mind that comparisons based on %age of GP or cost per capita tell but part of the story. For instance a truly efficient national health service may well provide a superior and broader ranging service than a mediocre one at less real cost per 'unit of service'. In other words expenditure comparisons by definition are invariably misleading.

Equally a, broadly speaking, wealthy society such as the USA might (and does) provide a woefully inadequate taxpayer funded health service thus encouraging a disproportionately greater reliance and therefore a much greater spend on private health care, compared with a comprehensive and generally competent taxaper funded health service in the UK.

Once comprehensive health insurance is brought into play the range of services available might perhaps boggle the imagination and have little connection with health, care or need once again increasing the expenditure on national health care expenditure while having little relationship to the real health needs of the nation.

In comparison with, for example, the USA where to get the highest quality of health care one would need to go private, in countries like the UK and France the taxpayer funded health care certainly provides a far greater breadth of health care and in many sectors a level of excellence which the private sector would not even attempt to match.

In truth there is precious little in history which I admire or respect Labout for, but the creation of the NHS is one measure which stands out as possibly their greatest legacy, although God alone knows what Bevan would think of a world where advances in medical science and surgical procedures far outstrip taxpayers ability to pay for it.





Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Major Sinic
Oct 20 2014, 10:40 PM
Thank you for that. No I haven't yet sought a more detailed breakdown of figures.



That Guardian link I gave has the figures you wanted - both State Costs AND Private Costs.



http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
"n comparison with, for example, the USA where to get the highest quality of health care one would need to go private, in countries like the UK and France the taxpayer funded health care certainly provides a far greater breadth of health care and in many sectors a level of excellence which the private sector would not even attempt to match."

I fully agree, but for that system to work it should only apply to the taxpayers of this country and those that have contributed into it, some of them for a whole working life, and all they ask for is treatment when needed, after all, that is what insurance is all about.
Edited by Rich, Oct 21 2014, 12:39 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Funny how the chart was for 2014 an improvement in position after reforms by this Gov. What it means in the great fudge of subjectivity and skewed reporting is beyond me but I certainly do see this as confirmation that the Tories are going to privatise the MHS asap. Not sure that without a massive discount anyone would want to take it on. Pity!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Rich
Oct 21 2014, 12:39 AM
"n comparison with, for example, the USA where to get the highest quality of health care one would need to go private, in countries like the UK and France the taxpayer funded health care certainly provides a far greater breadth of health care and in many sectors a level of excellence which the private sector would not even attempt to match."

I fully agree, but for that system to work it should only apply to the taxpayers of this country and those that have contributed into it, some of them for a whole working life, and all they ask for is treatment when needed, after all, that is what insurance is all about.
I agree entirely.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Affa
Oct 20 2014, 11:05 PM
Major Sinic
Oct 20 2014, 10:40 PM
Thank you for that. No I haven't yet sought a more detailed breakdown of figures.



That Guardian link I gave has the figures you wanted - both State Costs AND Private Costs.



http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country
Thank you for that Affa. It certainly puts more fat on the bones and rather supports my own views. Certainly the British NHS is clearly an effective and relatively efficient 'First World' health service.

In common with the majority of the members of our society I consider the NHS a national treasure.

However when Anuerin Bevan masterminded the creation of the NHS in 1948 medical knowledge was relatively limited and the taxpayer could afford the resultant comparatively restricted health care.

One wonders what Bevan would think of the the challenges facing the NHS today? Medical knowledge and development are progressing to such an extent that the poor old taxpayer simply can not afford to keep up if we are to keep the balance between healthcare and all the other areas of public expenditure.

In 1950, two years after the formulation of the NHS, it cost 3.6% of GDP which had risen by over 260% to 9.6% by 2012. Indeed it has become a victim of its own success. Life expectancy has increased massively, in great part as a result of improved medical science provided by the NHS, and with this greatly increased life expectancy comes additional healthcare costs associated with an ageing population living longer than ever before. In 1950 male life expectancy was 66 which had increased to 78 by 2012.

I can not see how the gap between the increasing cost of providing an ever more effective and wide rangeing national health service and a lack of financial resource can continue without reform.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
Stan Still
Oct 20 2014, 06:25 PM
johnofgwent
Oct 19 2014, 12:58 PM
Stan Still
Oct 19 2014, 07:44 AM
And you keep ignoring the fact that the sooner the nation pays off its debts the better and cheaper it is.
yes, but some of us believe it would be good if at least some of the nation remained at the end to enjoy the promised land
That is if you believe there is a promised land, our politicians have made so many promises that have never been seen the light of day.
!clp! /8/ /8/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Oct 20 2014, 07:09 PM
RJD
Oct 19 2014, 06:28 AM
Seems we did make a big mistake in not slashing the deficit within 5 years, now we have growth based on low incomes of those taken out of taxation. So either borrowing continues to rise and/or taxes increase or Slasher is allowed to get on with the job. Why did anyone believe that growth would be based on higher value added? Not as if our surpluses of Labour all have technology degrees is it, more like difficulties with plain English. Note industry has been struggling since before 2008 to fill jobs technologists.
Predictably pathetic putrid puerile piss poor pensioner piffle.

We need deflation me old mucker, then we really will be all in it together.The government has spent billions on ensuring the wealthiest have not paid for their gross errors, in plain English they have used taxpayers money to keep asset prices elevated, the trouble is wages are in real terms lower now than in 2008, so the wares the better off would like to flog us, ie property, financial scams and and of course that old favourite debt, are no longer affordable!

Solution, remove props supporting this crock of brown stuff and let real market forces have their way, you know it makes sense.
Funny that everything I said is true and fully reported in the public domain whilst yours is just conjecture. Best give up on the satire mags and start informing yourself.

Who are these so called wealthy people who have made gross errors to which you allude? Name one and the error.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
Major Sinic
Oct 21 2014, 08:29 AM
In 1950, two years after the formulation of the NHS, it cost 3.6% of GDP which had risen by over 260% to 9.6% by 2012.

Indeed it has become a victim of its own success. Life expectancy has increased massively, in great part as a result of improved medical science provided by the NHS, and with this greatly increased life expectancy comes additional healthcare costs associated with an ageing population living longer than ever before.

In 1950 male life expectancy was 66 which had increased to 78 by 2012.

I can not see how the gap between the increasing cost of providing an ever more effective and wide rangeing national health service and a lack of financial resource can continue without reform.
Well, looking at that same chart, our spending as a percentage of GDP is less than NICARAGUA and a whole host of other places I certainly would not fancy falling ill in regardless of whether the medical services are funded by the public or private purse.

Maybe you have hot the nail on the head there with your point about the success of the system prolonging longevity. The problem is that people clearly are not dying when they damn well should ...

Of course, there was a simple solution to that, published around my 10th birthday, by two chaps by the name of Nolan and Johnson. Fortunately a work of fiction I am convinced some people believe it is government policy ...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Major Sinic
Oct 21 2014, 08:29 AM
Affa
Oct 20 2014, 11:05 PM
Major Sinic
Oct 20 2014, 10:40 PM
Thank you for that. No I haven't yet sought a more detailed breakdown of figures.



That Guardian link I gave has the figures you wanted - both State Costs AND Private Costs.



http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country
Thank you for that Affa. It certainly puts more fat on the bones and rather supports my own views. Certainly the British NHS is clearly an effective and relatively efficient 'First World' health service.

In common with the majority of the members of our society I consider the NHS a national treasure.

However when Anuerin Bevan masterminded the creation of the NHS in 1948 medical knowledge was relatively limited and the taxpayer could afford the resultant comparatively restricted health care.

One wonders what Bevan would think of the the challenges facing the NHS today? Medical knowledge and development are progressing to such an extent that the poor old taxpayer simply can not afford to keep up if we are to keep the balance between healthcare and all the other areas of public expenditure.

In 1950, two years after the formulation of the NHS, it cost 3.6% of GDP which had risen by over 260% to 9.6% by 2012. Indeed it has become a victim of its own success. Life expectancy has increased massively, in great part as a result of improved medical science provided by the NHS, and with this greatly increased life expectancy comes additional healthcare costs associated with an ageing population living longer than ever before. In 1950 male life expectancy was 66 which had increased to 78 by 2012.

I can not see how the gap between the increasing cost of providing an ever more effective and wide rangeing national health service and a lack of financial resource can continue without reform.
Best determine the portion of NHS expenditure per age group.
Best determine the effective benefit of such expenditure.

Then you will find that the vast majority of the expenditure is on the aged keeping them alive for weeks. The improvements in life expectancy is more to do with hygiene, diet and penicillin than anything provided by the NHS. That said the NHS made no detrimental contribution it just cannot be fingered as the cause.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Major Sinic
Oct 21 2014, 08:29 AM


I can not see how the gap between the increasing cost of providing an ever more effective and wide rangeing national health service and a lack of financial resource can continue without reform.


Currently less than 9% of GDP ........ many countries are paying more than that, the US twice as much.
There is some leeway, yet.but the trending is worrisome ........


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

RJD
Oct 21 2014, 11:19 AM
Major Sinic
Oct 21 2014, 08:29 AM
Affa
Oct 20 2014, 11:05 PM
Major Sinic
Oct 20 2014, 10:40 PM
Thank you for that. No I haven't yet sought a more detailed breakdown of figures.



That Guardian link I gave has the figures you wanted - both State Costs AND Private Costs.



http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country
Thank you for that Affa. It certainly puts more fat on the bones and rather supports my own views. Certainly the British NHS is clearly an effective and relatively efficient 'First World' health service.

In common with the majority of the members of our society I consider the NHS a national treasure.

However when Anuerin Bevan masterminded the creation of the NHS in 1948 medical knowledge was relatively limited and the taxpayer could afford the resultant comparatively restricted health care.

One wonders what Bevan would think of the the challenges facing the NHS today? Medical knowledge and development are progressing to such an extent that the poor old taxpayer simply can not afford to keep up if we are to keep the balance between healthcare and all the other areas of public expenditure.

In 1950, two years after the formulation of the NHS, it cost 3.6% of GDP which had risen by over 260% to 9.6% by 2012. Indeed it has become a victim of its own success. Life expectancy has increased massively, in great part as a result of improved medical science provided by the NHS, and with this greatly increased life expectancy comes additional healthcare costs associated with an ageing population living longer than ever before. In 1950 male life expectancy was 66 which had increased to 78 by 2012.

I can not see how the gap between the increasing cost of providing an ever more effective and wide rangeing national health service and a lack of financial resource can continue without reform.
Best determine the portion of NHS expenditure per age group.
Best determine the effective benefit of such expenditure.

Then you will find that the vast majority of the expenditure is on the aged keeping them alive for weeks. The improvements in life expectancy is more to do with hygiene, diet and penicillin than anything provided by the NHS. That said the NHS made no detrimental contribution it just cannot be fingered as the cause.



In so far as medical and surgical innovation has prolonged life through the intervention of the NHS, then the NHS has increased life expectancy. Let me clarify! Five years ago I had a major cardiac emergency event which the NHS has extensively rectified. Ten years earlier I would have died. The medical and surgical advances in those fifteen years as used by the NHS cost somewhere in the region of £80k.

This had the effect of:-

Increasing my life expectancy by five years (to date!) and therefore the life expectancy of the population by an infinitesimal amount (but every little helps!)

Costing the taxpayer £80k that it would have saved fifteen years ago.

Costing the taxpayer for the medical care I continue to receive which would have been saved fifteen years ago because I would not have been in need of it.

Of course I accept that diet and hygiene are also relevent, although penecillin was already widely available by 1948.



You suggest that the major cost is short term life expectancy increase of the elderly and I wouldn't dispute that. The decisions to ensure we as a nation are getting the best from the NHS are difficult ones. Perhaps one such decision might involve withholding expensive medical or surgical processes from individuals where the prognosis in terms of quality and length of life are poor. My main point is that the cost of life saving and life prolonging medical developments is increasing faster than our ability to pay for them. As such we will have no alternative but to reform the structure of the NHS and this will involve very difficult ethical and practical decisions.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Affa
Oct 21 2014, 11:46 AM
Major Sinic
Oct 21 2014, 08:29 AM


I can not see how the gap between the increasing cost of providing an ever more effective and wide rangeing national health service and a lack of financial resource can continue without reform.


Currently less than 9% of GDP ........ many countries are paying more than that, the US twice as much.
There is some leeway, yet.but the trending is worrisome ........


Yes but the point is that over half the health care expense in the USA is privately funded. This is comparing apples with pears.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Tigger
Oct 20 2014, 08:17 PM
Stan Still
Oct 20 2014, 07:43 PM
Deflation at a time of debt is not such a good idea its a double edged sword, it means prices may well fall and usually wages as a result but the debts do not fall they remain static, and of course if prices do fall and wages drop so does the amount of tax revenue to the treasury.

You still haven't quite got the hang of this have you?

With deflation costs become lower, you cannot keep propping up asset prices at taxpayers expense while expecting those very same taxpayers to accept lower wages AND continue to pay ever higher prices and service growing debts! Asset holders must be the next target not wage earners again, tap the unprodutive not the productive.

Don't worry though this is the very last option before Britain goes cap in hand to the IMF, there are loads more financial trick we can try before we accept reality and take real action..........
As eloquent as ever perhaps if you persevere long enough you may get the hang of debate.

I know what deflation means and it is as I said not such a good idea a double edged sword a risky business, especially for any Government as wages usually fall it means less revenue which means the Government has less income to pay off debts and takes much longer to pay off and higher interest charges

One thing you have forgotten is if the prices of services and goods fall which we all would like then the profits fall which means wages have to fall or numbers of employees have to be reduced if those supplying the goods are to stay in business, little of no profit means no business less work a downward spiral.

Perhaps you would like to explain whose assets you are going to tap or should I say seize? and how would you do it?






Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Affa
Oct 20 2014, 08:37 PM
jaguar
Oct 20 2014, 06:48 PM


"In England the Conservative/LibDem coalition has increased investment in our NHS and treated more patients and performed well.

https://fullfact.org/articles/NHS_budget_health_spending_statistics-28697

But don't let mention waiting lists or waiting times, eh.

Great when you do more cataract operations, decide to include stitching a stanley knife wound (health assistant - nurse), taking off a plaster cast, as 'surgery'. just to fiddle the figures.

There are hundreds of theatre operations cancelled each week - because there is no bed available on the ward (bed shortage = shortage of nurses).



There are lots of operation cancelled each day due to patients not turning up and entire operations rotas thrown out of sync, which means surgeons and staff are not where they are supposed to be at the right time and right place.

As for stitching up a cut you don't need a consultant surgeon to do that, Labour promised to end mixed wards they are still with us.

As for fiddling figures and blocking serious investigations into avoidable deaths, lack of treatment lack of funding, whistle blowers sacked, chaos etc until after the GE, then again I suggest you look at the NHS in Wales over the last 15 years under Labour.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Major has called it right the NHS cannot continue in its present form it has to be restructured and run more efficiently in order for it to survive, as I have always said it needs running better

And no that does not mean privatised
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply