# Funding the NHS



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

On the news this morning they are saying that the NHS is in trouble to the tune of 3 billion pounds. I don't know about you but I wouldn't mind giving £25, which is what it would take for all of working age to give to sort out the deficit. I also wouldn't mind giving an extra £1 a week to keep the NHS afloat.

I know there is corruption and cheating within parts of the NHS, as there seems to be in any large business or organization, but this is one institution that we should fight to keep.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

I tend to agree with you. Without giving it too much thought, it seems like a straightforward solution. I could afford 50p a week for a year added to our tax bill.

I would love the ex-Dragon, Hilary Duvee to be given a shot at sorting out the NHS. Saw an article a while back where she said she could get it back on track, if given the chance! It needs a good shake up to cut out the waste and mismanagement.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

I wouldn't mind paying extra tax to support and keep the NHS. The only trouble is, somewhere along the line that extra tax will be sidelined into something else - probably, knowing this government, tax cuts for the rich. You only have to look at National Insurance - that is supposed to pay for the NHS, but how much of it actually *does* go to the NHS? Does anyone have any figures?


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

So, there are 120 million people of working age?


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

My daughter is a staff nurse on a kids ward with 15 beds... she has a ward manager, a section manager + assistant, a department manager + assistant, a head of paediatrics & an overall head of nursing + assistant (I've probably forgot some). IMO this is where we should be looking. I'll bet none of those managers are on the minimum wage & if the same is true of all wards in all hospitals then management alone is costing billions... do we really need so many managers?


----------



## foxiesummer (Feb 4, 2009)

BlackadderUK said:


> My daughter is a staff nurse on a kids ward with 15 beds... she has a ward manager, a section manager + assistant, a department manager + assistant, a head of paediatrics & an overall head of nursing + assistant (I've probably forgot some). IMO this is where we should be looking. I'll bet none of those managers are on the minimum wage & if the same is true of all wards in all hospitals then management alone is costing billions... do we really need so many managers?


No we don't, bring back the matrons.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

rona said:


> On the news this morning they are saying that the NHS is in trouble to the tune of 3 billion pounds. I don't know about you but I wouldn't mind giving £25, which is what it would take for all of working age to give to sort out the deficit. I also wouldn't mind giving an extra £1 a week to keep the NHS afloat.
> 
> I know there is corruption and cheating within parts of the NHS, as there seems to be in any large business or organization, but this is one institution that we should fight to keep.


 We already pay NI for exactly this. However, if and when I get rich I'd be making a substantial payment to the children's hospital which saved my daughter's life. But I'd rather give direct to the hospital for things they are fundraising for than give to the black hole of Government.

Ditto my feelings on taxing the rich at a different rate to those on a lower wage. I'd give everyone a basic allowance of tax free earnings, then a set tax across the board, whatever salary you were on. So, if after allowing for the tax free initial allowance, someone earns 10 x bigger salary they pay 10 x more tax. They are already paying 10 x more tax into the national "pot" than the lower earner, why should it be bumped up to be even more? And no, I'm not on a huge wage, I'm self employed as a farmer and last tax year took _nothing _from the business as it was reinvested in fencing, field shelters and building up livestock numbers, we survived on husband's wage alone, plus our own meat and eggs ( and of course we didn't have to pay for childcare as I'm around, I calculated that we would spend £9,000 a year on childcare if we both worked for an employer who gave us x days holiday per year and we only wanted to spend Christmas, Bank Hols and birthdays together, dividing the rest of the school hols, inset days, and strike days between us). If I set off at the same time as husband, and got home at the same time, we'd have to use a childminder before the school breakfast club ( which doesn't open early enough to allow time to commute and start work on time), then after school clubs, then another childminder. So, a penny ( or £9,000) saved is a penny earned and all that...


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

This government can always find billions for the bankers, trident, HS2, tax breaks for filthy fracking industry, limitless amount of for a nonsensical badger cull, oddly theres nothing in the pot for the NHS though. The NHS is being deliberately underfunded, its being set up to fail so the government can privatise it along American lines. The medical profession have been desperately trying to the message out since the tories were in coalition with the lib dems.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-33933644

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/massive-leaked-nhs-privatisation-plan-6130835#


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

I think if it was as straightforward as just agreeing to give an extra £25 or £50 or even £100 as a one off payment to sort out all the problems then many would be prepared to but I really think it is time for someone to be brave enough to undertake a proper review of what we need to provide free, what we can no longer provide free and how we go about giving it. Why do we need so many managers in the NHS for instance? How are they allowed to get away with some of the scams they get up to like taking redundancy with a huge pay off/pension then coming back a week later on a bigger salary? This is from one of our local hospitals recently

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/ne...meeting_to_be_called_over_Fozard_pay_scandal/

I don't know what the answer is although we got by perfectly well in the late 70's early 80's without all these managers but I guess that was before all the changes to trusts and funding.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Satori said:


> So, there are 120 million people of working age?


My maths went awry there didn't it? 


Still, if we all gave the £25 and then £1 a week, that should almost sort it


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

rona said:


> My maths went awry there didn't it?
> 
> 
> Still, if we all gave the £25 and then £1 a week, that should almost sort it


Yes, but what about those that already "just" give regularly to Save The Children, Shelter, MacMillan, and all the other worthy causes that come knocking on our doors or ask "how are you today?" when you're innocently trying to make your grocery money stretch out? The Widow who gave her last 2 pennies in the bible probably wasn't paying interest on a credit card - she may have only had 2 pennies, but she wasn't in debt...The NHS was set up by the Govt to help those who couldn't afford private health care. How is an extra £4 - £5 a month taken from their bank account going to help those who need the NHS most - those of very low incomes, or those with mental health /stress issues which may not be caused by, but are certainly made worse by, worry over where the next penny is coming from. What about that poor lady who committed suicide because she couldn't cope with all those begging letters any more?


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I think if it was as straightforward as just agreeing to give an extra £25 or £50 or even £100 as a one off payment to sort out all the problems then many would be prepared to but I really think it is time for someone to be brave enough to undertake a proper review of what we need to provide free, what we can no longer provide free and how we go about giving it. Why do we need so many managers in the NHS for instance? How are they allowed to get away with some of the scams they get up to like taking redundancy with a huge pay off/pension then coming back a week later on a bigger salary? This is from one of our local hospitals recently
> 
> http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/ne...meeting_to_be_called_over_Fozard_pay_scandal/
> 
> I don't know what the answer is although we got by perfectly well in the late 70's early 80's without all these managers but I guess that was before all the changes to trusts and funding.


Pretty much agree with that 100%. I think there's little chance of any of this being fixed though. If you take a very high level view of the options it basically boils down to ...

1. Leave it broken,
2. Waste even more taxpayers money on short term fixes,
3. Privatise it,
4. Manage it properly.

Of these, option 4 would be my preference but it is not on the radar screen of any political leader. Options 1 to 3 are by far easier so one of these, or some mixture of them, is what we'll get.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> I wouldn't mind paying extra tax to support and keep the NHS. The only trouble is, somewhere along the line that extra tax will be sidelined into something else - probably, knowing this government, tax cuts for the rich. You only have to look at National Insurance - that is supposed to pay for the NHS, but how much of it actually *does* go to the NHS? Does anyone have any figures?


Those, sadly were my first thoughts as well.....


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

I wouldn't mind giving £25 and a £1 a week as long as it wasn't the Government taking it to sort out the mess with one of there whacky idea's!


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> I wouldn't mind paying extra tax to support and keep the NHS. The only trouble is, somewhere along the line that extra tax will be sidelined into something else - probably, knowing this government, tax cuts for the rich. You only have to look at National Insurance - that is supposed to pay for the NHS, but how much of it actually *does* go to the NHS? Does anyone have any figures?


National Insurance is not just to fund NHS and it *never* has been since it was introduced a hundred odd years ago. In fact NI predates the NHS by several decades.

Nowadays, I think about a quarter of the NI fund goes to the NHS.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Satori said:


> National Insurance is not just to fund NHS and it *never* has been since it was introduced a hundred odd years ago. In fact NI predates the NHS by several decades.
> 
> Nowadays, I think about a quarter of the NI fund goes to the NHS.


I don't think that @Spellweaver was saying that all NI money goes to the NHS.
But we do know that money collected by the government (any government) goes to cover a variety of things.
I certainly wouldn't mind paying an extra £1 a week (or more) (and that £25) if I knew that the money was going into funding the NHS. But there would have to be an assurance that this would be the case and that by 'funding the NHS', I wouldn't expect that to mean some sort of further investment into private enterprise within the NHS, but to fund actual NHS staff, equipment and _NHS_ services.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Satori said:


> *National Insurance is not just to fund NHS* and it *never* has been since it was introduced a hundred odd years ago. In fact NI predates the NHS by several decades.
> .


I never said ithat NI was *just* to fund the NHS - hence my asking if anyone knew any figures! I know the government can and does borrow against the NI Fund to fund other projects and I just wondered how much of what we pay is used for this rather than going to the NHS.

The National Insurance Act of 1911 was - if my memory serves me correctly cos it's a long time since I did 'O' level history - set up to provide sick pay and treatment for diseases such as tuberculosis, and unemployment pay.. The NHS was formed in the 1940s.


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

BlackadderUK said:


> My daughter is a staff nurse on a kids ward with 15 beds... she has a ward manager, a section manager + assistant, a department manager + assistant, a head of paediatrics & an overall head of nursing + assistant (I've probably forgot some). IMO this is where we should be looking. I'll bet none of those managers are on the minimum wage & if the same is true of all wards in all hospitals then management alone is costing billions... do we really need so many managers?


Google the percentage of managers in the NHS, it's actually not as big as you think. Lots of 'managers' on wards are only band 3's etc and often they are higher bands working part time. Unless you see the numbers be wary of making assumptions.

ETA: also, lots of the job roles you mention will have considerably more responsibility than those 15 beds. Head of nursing is on the board of directors for a start, head of Paeds is probably surgical ie. Consultant in charge. Department manager will be in charge of the directorate eg. Women's and children which will include the likes of all Paeds, labour ward, postnatal ward, neonatal, SCBU. I have no doubt all those roles need assistants too.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> I never said ithat NI was *just* to fund the NHS


I never said you did.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

People with twitter accounts theres a live debate starting right about now.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

*The NHA Party*‏@*NHAparty*13h13 hours ago
Govt NHS policy has one aim and one aim only: bring system to its knees so sell-off to friends can be sold as answer


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*I would not be willing to pay extra for the NHS under any tory government. You might as well back a horse in a race that you know isn't going to win. It has been the tories goal to get rid of the NHS since Maggie Thatcher.*


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

JANICE199 said:


> *I would not be willing to pay extra for the NHS under any tory government. You might as well back a horse in a race that you know isn't going to win. It has been the tories goal to get rid of the NHS since Maggie Thatcher.*


I'd not be prepared to pay extra for the NHS under any government.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

JANICE199 said:


> *I would not be willing to pay extra for the NHS under any tory government. You might as well back a horse in a race that you know isn't going to win. It has been the tories goal to get rid of the NHS since Maggie Thatcher.*


So why didn't she Janice? she had enough years in power to do so if that was really her plan. All those years with Brown and and Blair in charge I would have expected them to hand over a NHS running very efficiently with no deficits and nothing going wrong - a bit like the NHS in Wales being run by labour with all its problems and not forgetting Mid Staffs which was on Labour's watch (which was by no means an isolated incidence). Last time I heard the tories had promised an extra 8 billion funding for the NHS which is more than labour did in their election manifesto.

One of the things I would dearly love to see is the NHS taken out of the political domain. Funding/budgets/targets/initiatives etc have all detracted from its purpose. I think it should be run by medically qualified people who understand priorities of care rather than politicians who are out to line their own pockets such as the Blairs have done so well.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> So why didn't she Janice? she had enough years in power to do so if that was really her plan. All those years with Brown and and Blair in charge I would have expected them to hand over a NHS running very efficiently with no deficits and nothing going wrong - a bit like the NHS in Wales being run by labour with all its problems and not forgetting Mid Staffs which was on Labour's watch (which was by no means an isolated incidence). Last time I heard the tories had promised an extra 8 billion funding for the NHS which is more than labour did in their election manifesto.
> 
> One of the things I would dearly love to see is the NHS taken out of the political domain. Funding/budgets/targets/initiatives etc have all detracted from its purpose. I think it should be run by medically qualified people who understand priorities of care rather than politicians who are out to line their own pockets such as the Blairs have done so well.


*This makes interesting reading.*
*http://www.theguardian.com/politics...role-plan-to-dismantle-welfare-state-revealed*

*" Margaret Thatcher and her chancellor Sir Geoffrey Howe were behind a politically toxic plan in 1982 to dismantle the welfare state, newly released Downing Street documents show. She later attempted to distance herself from the plans after what was described as a "riot" in her cabinet."*
*ALSO*
*" 
Thatcher responded by famously promising in her 1982 Conservative party conference speech in Brighton that the NHS was "safe with us" - a claim that every Conservative leader since has felt compelled to repeat.

But the papers show the revised version of the CPRS paper that was leaked was mild in comparison with the original set of proposals - and that Thatcher's horror had more to do with the prospect of a leak than with the nature of its contents.

The leaked version proposed introducing education vouchers, ending the state funding of higher education, freezing welfare benefits and an insurance-based health service.*


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

I note you left this bit out

*"Those who could not afford to pay would then have their charges met by the state, via some form of rebating or reimbursement."

The only exceptions might be the long-term institutional care of the "mentally handicapped, elderly" who "clearly could not afford to pay".*

Basically they were undertaking a huge review of public spending and the size of the public sector but backed off from it.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Satori said:


> National Insurance is not just to fund NHS and it *never* has been since it was introduced a hundred odd years ago. In fact NI predates the NHS by several decades.


Always understood National Insurance was started to pay for war, the opposite of the NHS.

As far as I can see it's not simply a case of throwing money at the NHS but also running the NHS efficiently. How much do short term contractors earn whose tasks could be done by full time employees doing the same job? How much do managers earn in comparison to full time nurses and what is the return of investment for what they actually do? Add to that targets and the need to hit them rather than provide an efficient overall service. Budgets based on short term targets rather than long term ignoring potential savings. Then there are the costs of ongoing debts (labour and tories responsible although labour responsible for largest) and you have a continuing problem. Easy to say throw money at the problem but the problems are far deeper.

The idea of corruption is one which in the UK is denied but too often it's the old boys network and decisions based on who knows who, not who can provide the necessary service efficiently. IT contracts are a great example of this.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I note you left this bit out
> 
> *"Those who could not afford to pay would then have their charges met by the state, via some form of rebating or reimbursement."
> 
> ...


*I left it out because it wasn't important, in my opinion. *


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

JANICE199 said:


> *The leaked version proposed introducing education vouchers, ending the state funding of higher education, freezing welfare benefits and an insurance-based health service.*


Almost there then....


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> So why didn't she Janice? she had enough years in power to do so if that was really her plan.


As Janice's post shows, Thatcher backed off only because she knew she wouldn't get the support she needed.


rottiepointerhouse said:


> All those years with Brown and and Blair in charge I would have expected them to hand over a NHS running very efficiently with no deficits and nothing going wrong - a bit like the NHS in Wales being run by labour with all its problems and not forgetting Mid Staffs which was on Labour's watch (which was by no means an isolated incidence).


Brown and Blair did a lot of good for the NHS, but the 'New Labour' plan was flawed by relying on the 'Trust' plan and an attempt to merge public bodies with private enterprise.


rottiepointerhouse said:


> Last time I heard the tories had promised an extra 8 billion funding for the NHS which is more than labour did in their election manifesto.


And where is some of that money coming from? Cuts to the welfare sector. 
Hardly helpful to the NHS when more people are becoming ill because they cannot afford decent food and housing.


rottiepointerhouse said:


> One of the things I would dearly love to see is the NHS taken out of the political domain. Funding/budgets/targets/initiatives etc have all detracted from its purpose. I think it should be run by medically qualified people who understand priorities of care rather than politicians who are out to line their own pockets such as the Blairs have done so well.


This is the bit that received my 'like' 
Although I would add more names after Blair - from all political parties.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

silvi said:


> As Janice's post shows, Thatcher backed off only because she knew she wouldn't get the support she needed.
> 
> Brown and Blair did a lot of good for the NHS, but the 'New Labour' plan was flawed by relying on the 'Trust' plan and an attempt to merge public bodies with private enterprise.
> 
> ...


I don't know as they did a lot of good for the NHS Silvi, they certainly didn't leave it in very good condition and whilst I agree lots of politicians from all parties have lined their own pockets Blair has to be one of the worst - Middle East Peace Envoy my :Mooning

Something has to be done about the NHS, every day we hear about more and more demands being put on it with increasing cases of obesity and of diabetes with all its complications and prescriptions for gluten free products including cakes, biscuits and pizza bases with huge admin charges on each transaction. It seems to have lost its way and I think someone very brave does need to step up and review it and implement some changes because the costs will just carry on rising and the demand will carry on rising. Whether that includes some form of health insurance scheme or not I don't know but it does need looking at and consideration.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I don't know as they did a lot of good for the NHS Silvi, they certainly didn't leave it in very good condition and whilst I agree lots of politicians from all parties have lined their own pockets Blair has to be one of the worst - Middle East Peace Envoy my :Mooning


Agree with you about Blair. (I'm a Labour supporter, which doesn't make me a Blair supporter).
I could go for the usual political argument (spouted by all sides) that they had to put right wrongs made by previous governments first, and in 'New' Labour's case, that was a fact. But waiting times did go down and many new and advantageous health procedures were put in place, both medical and administrative.
It was a huge task and not always carried out well, but I do think that the NHS would have been much worse off right now if we hadn't had those years of Labour government.


rottiepointerhouse said:


> Something has to be done about the NHS, every day we hear about more and more demands being put on it with increasing cases of obesity and of diabetes with all its complications and prescriptions for gluten free products including cakes, biscuits and pizza bases with huge admin charges on each transaction. It seems to have lost its way and I think someone very brave does need to step up and review it and implement some changes because the costs will just carry on rising and the demand will carry on rising. Whether that includes some form of health insurance scheme or not I don't know but it does need looking at and consideration.


I'm not quite sure what you are getting at by aligning the prescriptions for gluten free products alongside increasing cases of obesity (and links to type 2 diabetes). I'm married to someone who is coeliac and I can assure you that he didn't get there via obesity (if you saw him you'd understand that remark!).
But I do agree that those making gluten-free products are taking the proverbial with their prices, which is why we hardly ever buy them. But particularly for those recently diagnosed, some of those products are invaluable, particularly gluten-free flour and bread. So I don't begrudge them getting those products under prescription. It's the producers and their costs that should be attacked - not the patients forced to get their products.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

silvi said:


> Agree with you about Blair. (I'm a Labour supporter, which doesn't make me a Blair supporter).
> I could go for the usual political argument (spouted by all sides) that they had to put right wrongs made by previous governments first, and in 'New' Labour's case, that was a fact. But waiting times did go down and many new and advantageous health procedures were put in place, both medical and administrative.
> It was a huge task and not always carried out well, but I do think that the NHS would have been much worse off right now if we hadn't had those years of Labour government.
> 
> ...


I wasn't getting at anything and certainly was not implying that people with coeliac got there via obesity any more than all diabetics got there via obesity (my Mum has what used to be called late onset diabetes because of a surgical error removing most of her pancreas instead of an adrenal gland and is as thin as a rake). I meant every day we read about more demands, new drugs available that cost a fortune, new surgical techniques, higher incidences of certain conditions not least the number of drunks taking up valuable time in A & E. The gluten free prescriptions is just another of those increasing demands - I understand the need for some gluten free products to be provided but as with a lot of things its starts out being OK then gets abused and out of hand - flour/bread etc fine but not cookies/biscuits (211,200 prescriptions in 2014), cake and cake mixes (6,900), burger mix (2039) and pizza bases (102,700). That is what I meant by someone needing to have the balls to really review what the NHS is for and how it is funded.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I wasn't getting at anything and certainly was not implying that people with coeliac got there via obesity any more than all diabetics got there via obesity (my Mum has what used to be called late onset diabetes because of a surgical error removing most of her pancreas instead of an adrenal gland and is as thin as a rake). I meant every day we read about more demands, new drugs available that cost a fortune, new surgical techniques, higher incidences of certain conditions not least the number of drunks taking up valuable time in A & E. The gluten free prescriptions is just another of those increasing demands - I understand the need for some gluten free products to be provided but as with a lot of things its starts out being OK then gets abused and out of hand - flour/bread etc fine but not cookies/biscuits (211,200 prescriptions in 2014), cake and cake mixes (6,900), burger mix (2039) and pizza bases (102,700). That is what I meant by someone needing to have the balls to really review what the NHS is for and how it is funded.


I agree about sticking to lifesaving things, there's little enough money as it is. If you can get gluten free flour you can make your own cakes and biscuits, and pizza bases can be made from gluten free bread - it's only glorified cheese on toast. Our best man is a coeliac, I remember having to wash off meat I'd marinaded with a bit of mustard as well as wine etc, even a teaspoon of ready made mustard in enough meat for 4 would have caused problems. We also had the top layer of our wedding cake made gluten free for him ( just a couple of days before, as goes dry). As long as people are not allowed certain drugs on a cost basis there can be no justification for prescribing cake.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I wasn't getting at anything and certainly was not implying that people with coeliac got there via obesity any more than all diabetics got there via obesity (my Mum has what used to be called late onset diabetes because of a surgical error removing most of her pancreas instead of an adrenal gland and is as thin as a rake). I meant every day we read about more demands, new drugs available that cost a fortune, new surgical techniques, higher incidences of certain conditions not least the number of drunks taking up valuable time in A & E. The gluten free prescriptions is just another of those increasing demands - I understand the need for some gluten free products to be provided but as with a lot of things its starts out being OK then gets abused and out of hand - flour/bread etc fine but not cookies/biscuits (211,200 prescriptions in 2014), cake and cake mixes (6,900), burger mix (2039) and pizza bases (102,700). That is what I meant by someone needing to have the balls to really review what the NHS is for and how it is funded.


I didn't think you were as it isn't like you, but it came across a bit that way.
That's awful what happened to your Mum by the way!

And as I said, i do agree that something needs to be done about all the gluten free prescriptions, but it requires a two-pronged approach. While manufacturers charge ridiculously high prices for gluten free products, some people will only be able to afford these products if they buy them on prescription, while others, like us, will simply avoid using them unless absolutely necessary (but we have had years of learning about how to do this).
Cutting down the number of gluten free items allowed on prescription would be one way, and it would certainly save the NHS money, but it would serve no helpful purpose for the coeliac or for the producer. And coeliacs rely on producers to make these products, particularly the staples like flour.
Convincing the producers to keep their prices down to acceptable levels would be a much better solution all round. But I doubt whether that will happen while they have a captive range of consumers.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

I can quite understand how it started out - years ago there were very few specialist products available in supermarkets whereas today there is an extensive choice with most supermarkets have their own range of "free from" products. They are more expensive so I would prefer to see a voucher system whereby people who genuinely need them get a monthly allowance to pay for the essentials such as flour and bread but not cakes/biscuits/pasties etc.

The diabetic situation is frightening making up 10% of the NHS drugs budget and resulting in 135 foot amputations per week :Jawdrop

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-33932930


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

This is happening in Wembley next week if anyone is interested & can make it.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I can quite understand how it started out - years ago there were very few specialist products available in supermarkets whereas today there is an extensive choice with most supermarkets have their own range of "free from" products. They are more expensive so I would prefer to see a voucher system whereby people who genuinely need them get a monthly allowance to pay for the essentials such as flour and bread but not cakes/biscuits/pasties etc.


Agree with a possible voucher system, but I'm not so sure about telling people what they can buy with them. So, vouchers _only_ for flour and bread, fine; shopping vouchers where certain items are 'not allowed', not so fine.


rottiepointerhouse said:


> The diabetic situation is frightening making up 10% of the NHS drugs budget and resulting in 135 foot amputations per week :Jawdrop
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-33932930


Agreed. And also totally scary for those newly-diagnosed as diabetic.

But again, we need to be looking at the food producers (why they put certain additives into food for a start) as well as trying to 'educate' people what food stuffs to eat and what to avoid.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *I would not be willing to pay extra for the NHS under any tory government. You might as well back a horse in a race that you know isn't going to win. It has been the tories goal to get rid of the NHS since Maggie Thatcher.*


Whilst I agree with the sentiment completely, it's a shame you didn't vote in the election accordingly. I can't help but be reminded of the difference the non voters would have made to the country right now on threads like this.

Anyway, no I won't pay to save the NHS, I would rather this government were held to account on their spending full stop.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

MollySmith said:


> it's a shame you didn't vote in the election accordingly.


Think most people knew there were no "good" options despite the rhetoric of the minority on here ignoring the faults of certain parties.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Pretty sure everyone knew that the nhs would be under immediate fire if the tories got in again.. presume all the tory voters want to see it fail since thats what they voted for.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

porps said:


> Pretty sure everyone knew that the nhs would be under immediate fire if the tories got in again..* presume all the tory voters want to see it fail since thats what they voted for*.


Baloney.

The Green Party's manifesto was 86 pages long - I didn't read every single word and I certainly didn't agree with every single one of their policies but they got my vote at the GE.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Think most people knew there were no "good" options despite the rhetoric of the minority on here ignoring the faults of certain parties.


There were no good options but the evidence speaks for itself, labour were by far the better option out of the main parties. This is what the National Health Action Party are saying. (The NHA Party was set up by medical professionals to try to save the NHS from being dismantled, they are not affiliated to any other party, they are a political party in their own right.)

*The NHA Party‏@NHAparty**Aug 15*
*In 2010, NHS had highest-ever public approval rating. Now on verge of collapse. Tories cannot be trusted with our NHS.*

And here the Tories £8 billion NHS funding pledge deception is brilliantly exposed by Dr Louise Irvine
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/7104674?utm_hp_ref=tw…

Read Their Lips - The Tories Are Fooling You Over Their £8billion NHS Funding Pledge

_Why are the media allowing themselves and the public to be hoodwinked by the Tory pledge to fund the NHS?..._

.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

The author of that article is a bit dim I'm afraid and has no clue how cost saving or spending targets are expressed and measured. The language in the manifesto is consistent with that used by every professional involved in budget expression and measurement in industry. It means that an amount will be added each year to the RUN RATE of spend and that by the end of the five years the accumulation of such amounts will be 8 billion. The effect of this is to increase the ANNUAL spend from year 6 and thereafter by 8 billion. Standard business / financial terminology; no lies other than perhaps from the idiot who wrote the article.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Satori said:


> The author of that article is a bit dim I'm afraid and has no clue how cost saving or spending targets are expressed and measured. The language in the manifesto is consistent with that used by every professional involved in budget expression and measurement in industry. It means that an amount will be added each year to the RUN RATE of spend and that by the end of the five years the accumulation of such amounts will be 8 billion. The effect of this is to increase the ANNUAL spend from year 6 and thereafter by 8 billion. Standard business / financial terminology; no lies other than perhaps from the idiot who wrote the article.


I'd trust a Dr over this pair of duplicitous crooks any day of the week lol











If people care about our NHS & dont know what the tories are doing - watch these. It will scare the [email protected] out of you.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

porps said:


> Pretty sure everyone knew that the nhs would be under immediate fire if the tories got in again.. presume all the tory voters want to see it fail since thats what they voted for.


Of course, I voted for them precisely for that reason, so that I could jump and down for joy when they close down the NHS, the one I worked in for many years. Nasty tory voters, don't care about the NHS :Yawn:Yawn Yet again I say the NHS was not doing so well under labour, they did not leave it in a good state. The NHS is such a huge machine that no political party seem to have the answers to how to manage and fund it. Its needs a total review.

Mid Staffs under a labour leadership 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21613932


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

May be we should stop giving money abroad until we sort the NHS out, then worry about others. Charity begins at home so they say.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Of course, I voted for them precisely for that reason, so that I could jump and down for joy when they close down the NHS, the one I worked in for many years. Nasty tory voters, don't care about the NHS :Yawn:Yawn Yet again I say the NHS was not doing so well under labour, they did not leave it in a good state. The NHS is such a huge machine that no political party seem to have the answers to how to manage and fund it. Its needs a total review.
> 
> Mid Staffs under a labour leadership
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21613932


Labour did some bad things but nothing of the magnitude we're seeing now. When labour left power the NHS was rated one of the most efficient, cost effective health services in the world. Patient satisfaction was at an all time high. The tories have brought it to its knees, its now on the verge of collapse.

From 2011 -

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/aug/07/nhs-among-most-efficient-health-services

*NHS among developed world's most efficient health systems, says study*
Report in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine finds health service second only to Ireland for cost-effectiveness

The NHS is one of the most cost-effective health systems in the developed world, according to astudy(pdf) published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

The "surprising" findings show theNHSsaving more lives for each pound spent as a proportion of national wealth than any other country apart from Ireland over 25 years. Among the 17 countries considered, the United States healthcare system was among the least efficient and effective.

Researchers said that this contradicted assertions by the health secretary,Andrew Lansley, that the NHS needed competition and choice to become more efficient.

"The government proposals to change the NHS are largely based on the idea that the NHS is less efficient and effective than other countries, especially the US," said Professor Colin Pritchard, of Bournemouth University, who analysed a quarter of a century's data from 1980.

"The results question why we need a big set of health reform proposals ... The system works well. Look at the US and you can see where choice and competition gets you. Pretty dismal results."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12805586

*NHS satisfaction 'at record high'*

22 March 2011
From the section Health









Two thirds of the British public are satisfied with the NHS

Public satisfaction with the NHS has reached record levels, according to a leading health economist.

Writing on the BMJ website, Professor John Appleby said 64% of people were either very or quite satisfied with the NHS.

Critics have questioned why the government is reorganising the NHS when the public is happy with it.

The Department of Health said reform was necessary to sustain the future of the NHS.

Professor John Appleby was quoting data from the latest annual British Social Attitudes Survey.

It shows satisfaction is at the highest level since the survey began in 1983 and much higher than their levels of 39% in 2001.

Professor Appleby, of the King's Fund think tank, said: "The NHS must have been doing something right to earn this extra satisfaction, something even Conservative supporters have noticed, and something probably not unadjacent to the large rise in funding since 2000."

*Reform*
Much of the NHS budget is to be handed to GPs as part of healthcare reforms in England.

In the survey, satisfaction with GPs was at 80%, just short of its peak in the 1990s.

A Department of Health spokesperson said: "We welcome the findings which show public satisfaction levels are good, particularly with GPs. Our reforms will empower GPs, not bureaucrats, to commission services.

"If we want to sustain the NHS in the future, we need to modernise it now."

Last week the British Medical Association called on the government to halt to its overhaul of the NHS.

"With survey results like this you have to question why the government feels it is necessary to embark on such a radical and costly re-organisation of the NHS right now, particularly when you take into account the financial pressure the service is already under", a spokesperson said.

Shadow Health Secretary John Healey said: "The evidence is there for all to see that Labour left the NHS with the highest ever levels of public satisfaction, even among Conservative voters.

"It is also clear that the NHS is re-emerging as a worry for the public, and taken alongside recent criticism from the BMA, LibDem conference and a GP among his backbenchers, it is difficult to see how David Cameron can claim support for his overhaul of the NHS."

Professor Appleby concluded: "Future British Social Attitudes surveys will reveal how satisfied the public remain as funding for the NHS is squeezed and the government's proposed reforms take shape on the ground."


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

[QUOTE="noushka05, post: 1064274922, member: 2189"*]Labour did some bad things but nothing of the magnitude we're seeing now.* When labour left power the NHS was rated one of the most efficient, cost effective health services in the world. Patient satisfaction was at an all time high. The tories have brought it to its knees, its now on the verge of collapse.

From 2011 -

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/aug/07/nhs-among-most-efficient-health-services

*NHS among developed world's most efficient health systems, says study*
Report in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine finds health service second only to Ireland for cost-effectiveness

The NHS is one of the most cost-effective health systems in the developed world, according to astudy(pdf) published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

The "surprising" findings show theNHSsaving more lives for each pound spent as a proportion of national wealth than any other country apart from Ireland over 25 years. Among the 17 countries considered, the United States healthcare system was among the least efficient and effective.

Researchers said that this contradicted assertions by the health secretary,Andrew Lansley, that the NHS needed competition and choice to become more efficient.

"The government proposals to change the NHS are largely based on the idea that the NHS is less efficient and effective than other countries, especially the US," said Professor Colin Pritchard, of Bournemouth University, who analysed a quarter of a century's data from 1980.

"The results question why we need a big set of health reform proposals ... The system works well. Look at the US and you can see where choice and competition gets you. Pretty dismal results."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12805586

*NHS satisfaction 'at record high'*

22 March 2011
From the section Health









Two thirds of the British public are satisfied with the NHS

Public satisfaction with the NHS has reached record levels, according to a leading health economist.

Writing on the BMJ website, Professor John Appleby said 64% of people were either very or quite satisfied with the NHS.

Critics have questioned why the government is reorganising the NHS when the public is happy with it.

The Department of Health said reform was necessary to sustain the future of the NHS.

Professor John Appleby was quoting data from the latest annual British Social Attitudes Survey.

It shows satisfaction is at the highest level since the survey began in 1983 and much higher than their levels of 39% in 2001.

Professor Appleby, of the King's Fund think tank, said: "The NHS must have been doing something right to earn this extra satisfaction, something even Conservative supporters have noticed, and something probably not unadjacent to the large rise in funding since 2000."

*Reform*
Much of the NHS budget is to be handed to GPs as part of healthcare reforms in England.

In the survey, satisfaction with GPs was at 80%, just short of its peak in the 1990s.

A Department of Health spokesperson said: "We welcome the findings which show public satisfaction levels are good, particularly with GPs. Our reforms will empower GPs, not bureaucrats, to commission services.

"If we want to sustain the NHS in the future, we need to modernise it now."

Last week the British Medical Association called on the government to halt to its overhaul of the NHS.

"With survey results like this you have to question why the government feels it is necessary to embark on such a radical and costly re-organisation of the NHS right now, particularly when you take into account the financial pressure the service is already under", a spokesperson said.

Shadow Health Secretary John Healey said: "The evidence is there for all to see that Labour left the NHS with the highest ever levels of public satisfaction, even among Conservative voters.

"It is also clear that the NHS is re-emerging as a worry for the public, and taken alongside recent criticism from the BMA, LibDem conference and a GP among his backbenchers, it is difficult to see how David Cameron can claim support for his overhaul of the NHS."

Professor Appleby concluded: "Future British Social Attitudes surveys will reveal how satisfied the public remain as funding for the NHS is squeezed and the government's proposed reforms take shape on the ground."[/QUOTE]

So we are seeing this now? - from the link about Mid Staffs

The trust has been at the centre of one of the worst scandals in NHS history after neglect and abuse led to hundreds of needless deaths from 2005 to 2008.

It is the second time an NHS trust has faced such a process - earlier this year the decision to break up South London Healthcare was agreed.

Mid Staffordshire looks after Stafford and Cannock Chase hospitals.

*It was at the Stafford site that "appalling" care led to the deaths of more than 400 patients.*


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> In 2010, NHS had highest-ever public approval rating. Now on verge of collapse. Tories cannot be trusted with our NHS.


Perception <> long term health and reality. You ignore long term debts which are the fault of labour privatising part of the NHS. This is still being paid for whilst you highlight only the tories. It's all media and propaganda based although only the tories are at fault according to you. Fixing the NHS isn't something which will happen as the solutions are not ones which can be advertised and gain votes in the short term. In fact the opposite, it could well lose votes in the short term. A problem with all parties. To fix the NHS you need it away from being used as a political score card.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

"rottiepointerhouse, post: 1064274945, member: 1409383"]


noushka05 said:


> Perception <> long term health and reality. You ignore long term debts which are the fault of labour privatising part of the NHS. This is still being paid for whilst you highlight only the tories. It's all media and propaganda based although only the tories are at fault according to you. Fixing the NHS isn't something which will happen as the solutions are not ones which can be advertised and gain votes in the short term. In fact the opposite, it could well lose votes in the short term. A problem with all parties. To fix the NHS you need it away from being used as a political score card.
> 
> The tories pushed through the Health & Social Care Act. Do you even know what that means for the NHS?


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Goblin said:


> Perception <> long term health and reality. You ignore long term debts which are the fault of labour privatising part of the NHS. This is still being paid for whilst you highlight only the tories. It's all media and propaganda based although only the tories are at fault according to you. Fixing the NHS isn't something which will happen as the solutions are not ones which can be advertised and gain votes in the short term. In fact the opposite, it could well lose votes in the short term. A problem with all parties. To fix the NHS you need it away from being used as a political score card.


I 'liked' that post because I agree with your conclusion. I also think that ignoring Labour errors while attacking Tory errors and plans is self-defeating, because it just leads to the "you did that", "yes, but you did that", endless argument.

And that takes our eyes off of the real concerns, which for me, @noushka05 , @JANICE199 and others is that the NHS is slowly being privatised - sometimes by hidden methods and sometimes right in front of our eyes, if we bother to look. And the reason for this, I think, is not so much a Tory intent to dismantle any hint of the welfare state, but because of the ideology adhered to by many Tories (and, sadly, some members of the Labour Party), that adhering to 'market forces' is the only way to control everything, even public sector institutions.

But how you take the NHS off of the political agenda is problematic in itself. I would say that for a very large number of voters (and non-voters) the NHS is their main concern. Therefore if it suddenly disappeared from political debate, people would smell a rat. And also, as it is the main thing that many people vote about, no politician is going to risk losing votes which support their views on the matter.
Tricky....


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> [QUOTE="noushka05, post: 1064274922, member: 2189"*]Labour did some bad things but nothing of the magnitude we're seeing now.* When labour left power the NHS was rated one of the most efficient, cost effective health services in the world. Patient satisfaction was at an all time high. The tories have brought it to its knees, its now on the verge of collapse.
> 
> From 2011 -
> 
> ...


So we are seeing this now? - from the link about Mid Staffs

The trust has been at the centre of one of the worst scandals in NHS history after neglect and abuse led to hundreds of needless deaths from 2005 to 2008.

It is the second time an NHS trust has faced such a process - earlier this year the decision to break up South London Healthcare was agreed.

Mid Staffordshire looks after Stafford and Cannock Chase hospitals.

*It was at the Stafford site that "appalling" care led to the deaths of more than 400 patients.*[/QUOTE]

Something is going wrong with quotes, I've tried to sort it out but I cant. Sorry.

I hope you don't think I condone anything New Labour did to put patients in jeopardy - because I don't RPH. I'm saying labour are the best of a bad bunch (excluding the Greens of course  & the SNP). It was market driven ideology that was the main cause of the Mid- Staffs travesty. Mid staffs cut staff to reduce costs so it could become a Foundation Trust. It was run like a business to make profit instead of focusing on care. And this is why Jeremy Hunt & the tories are so disingenuous. They use Mid Staffs against labour while at the same time slyly turning all our hospitals into 'Mid Staffs'. How many people will suffer when all hospitals & the whole of our NHS is run like a business? In fact how many people has this government killed already & as a result of their ideological policies? The governments own statistics show that between 2010 & 2011 10,600 people died within six weeks of losing their benefits - they refuse release any more data! People are desperate - I've never lived through anything like this before & to think we are one of the wealthiest countries on the planet :/


----------



## saffysmum (Feb 11, 2015)

foxiesummer said:


> No we don't, bring back the matrons.


They did. That just added yet another layer to the already bloated management system, who have no real idea what actually goes on on a real ward!! Matrons tend to be nurses who haven't actually seen, never mind touched, a patient in years! :Banghead 
All IMHO and personal experience


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

porps said:


> Pretty sure everyone knew that the nhs would be under immediate fire if the tories got in again.. presume all the tory voters want to see it fail since thats what they voted for.


Who did you vote for?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

@noushka05 don't worry I can't get quote your post either. Not sure if your comment below was directed at me or @Goblin

"The tories pushed through the Health & Social Care Act. Do you even know what that means for the NHS?"

I'll answer the point anyway. Yes I have read quite a lot of the fact sheets about the act although not every single one in detail granted. Here is the link if anyone is interested

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-and-social-care-act-2012-fact-sheets

you can click the link to any of the fact sheets that cover bits you are more interested in. So for instance - an overview of the act

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...view-of-health-and-care-structures-240412.pdf

and the one about choice and competition

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa....-Factsheet-Choice-and-competition-270412.pdf

I can't really say as there is anything that horrifies me Noush - I would however say its more tinkering and more administrators and more bureaucracy and I don't think it will make one jot of difference. We need a proper all party review and public consultation (not within an election but specifically about the NHS) about what we think the NHS should and should not provide and how to pay for it long term with the increasing demands placed on it.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Catharinem said:


> Who did you vote for?


wtf does that have to do with you?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> @noushka05 don't worry I can't get quote your post either. Not sure if your comment below was directed at me or @Goblin
> 
> "The tories pushed through the Health & Social Care Act. Do you even know what that means for the NHS?"
> 
> ...


Are you not horrified that all hospitals are going to be like Mid Staffs - run for profit not quality of care? Modelled on the American system? Cameron promised they wouldn't privatise the NHS, promised no top down reorganisation & then without a mandate, pressed ahead with the biggest reorganisation in the NHSs history & full on privatisation. I don't trust govt documents to be transparent about what they are doing, but will have a look when I have more time.

BMJ -

http://www.nhsbill2015.org/bmj-report-a-third-of-nhs-contracts-awarded-to-private-sector/

The BMJ have published (10 Dec 2014) *a new report* which states that *a third of contracts awarded since April 2013 have gone to the private sector*.

*'Its analysis of 3494 contracts awarded between April 2013 and August 2014 disclosed to it under requests made under freedom of information legislation showed that, in total, non-NHS providers (including private sector, voluntary sector, and other providers) have secured 45% of contracts awarded since April 2013. The analysis of the data supplied by clinical commissioning groups showed that 1149 contracts (33% of the total) were awarded to private sector providers, 335 (10%) to voluntary and social enterprise sector providers, and 100 (3%) to other types of provider, such as joint ventures or local authorities.'*

Gareth Iacobucci, BMJ 2014;349:g7606

In response, BMA council chair, Dr Mark Porter, said:

*These figures show the extent of creeping privatisation in the NHS since the Health and Social Care Act was introduced. The Government flatly denied the Act would lead to more privatisation, but it has done exactly that.*

*Enforcing competition in the NHS has not only led to services being fragmented, making the delivery of high-quality, joined-up care more difficult, but it has also diverted vital funding away from front-line services to costly, complicated tendering processes.*

Dr Mark Porter, 10 Dec 2014

Peter Roderick, barrister and co-author of the *proposed NHS Reinstatement Bill* said:

*This is precisely what was anticipated would happen during the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill. It's one of the main ways in which NHS privatisation is now unfolding. The NHS Reinstatement Bill would stop this. *


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

voting tory then being annoyed that the destroy the nhs is like voting bnp then acting annoyed cos theyre racist


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Oh come on Noush I don't think you can say all hospitals are going to end up like Mid Staffs. I'm not against change and change is needed so if that means some contracts for some things to go private enterprises then so be it. I think its exactly to avoid a situation like Mid Staffs or like a close family friend of ours dropping dead while waiting to see a cardiac surgeon for over 6 months (under labour I might add) happening that we need to be flexible and if the private sector can do it better/quicker then use them.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

porps said:


> voting tory then being annoyed that the destroy the nhs is like voting bnp then acting annoyed cos theyre racist


So what is voting labour and being annoyed about Mid Staffs then? I haven't read any tory voter saying they are either annoyed or that they think the tories are destroying the NHS. Personally I think they are changing things and that some of the changes are for the better and some perhaps not so good but I do not believe they are destroying it. Last time I needed a GP appointment I got one. Last time my Mum needed to see a hospital consultant she did, she sees the diabetic team and the skin cancer team and the bone cancer team every 3 months without fail, each one involves blood tests and some of them X-rays. She is still getting the same treatment she got before the election and her GP's surgery are trying out some new initiatives such as holistic care.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

dont assume that im a labour supporter. They are tories too, they just wear red instead of blue.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

porps said:


> dont assume that im a labour supporter. They are tories too, they just wear red instead of blue.


A lot of them are certainly thinking that way...sadly.
But that's why I have become a Labour supporter. I want to help stop the rot before it's too late.
(you could always wish me luck........)


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

porps said:


> voting tory then being annoyed that the destroy the nhs is like voting bnp then acting annoyed cos theyre racist


You of course used your vote wisely to stop the Tories destroying the NHS. At least I'm hoping you did, but previous posts ( destroying all politicians etc etc etc yawn) suggests you did nothing. No doubt if Labour had got in and the NHS was in trouble you could blame the people who voted Labour, and so on. You very much remind me of occasions when number one child can't decide what movie they want to watch ( more interested in anything other than making a choice), but complains wildly if we, parents and sister, then choose the "wrong" one. It can be funny in a child if we laugh her out of it, in a man discussing politics it's less funny.

So : without asking who you voted for ( as you so nicely put it, what the fxxk has it to do with me), which party do you consider best able to deliver the NHS from the mess it's in? And if you didn't vote for them, why not, does that lead to the conclusion you don't care about the NHS anymore than those who voted Tory?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Catharinem said:


> You of course used your vote wisely to stop the Tories destroying the NHS. At least I'm hoping you did, but previous posts ( destroying all politicians etc etc etc yawn) suggests you did nothing. No doubt if Labour had got in and the NHS was in trouble you could blame the people who voted Labour, and so on. You very much remind me of occasions when number one child can't decide what movie they want to watch ( more interested in anything other than making a choice), but complains wildly if we, parents and sister, then choose the "wrong" one. It can be funny in a child if we laugh her out of it, in a man discussing politics it's less funny.
> 
> So : without asking who you voted for ( as you so nicely put it, what the fxxk has it to do with me), which party do you consider best able to deliver the NHS from the mess it's in? And if you didn't vote for them, why not, does that lead to the conclusion you don't care about the NHS anymore than those who voted Tory?


Keep your judgements and your snide comments and assumptions to yourself. Why would i answer any of your questions after that? thats right - i wouldnt, unless i was a complete mug. If i was allowed to swear i would tell you what i think of YOU. But im not so i'll let you imagine it instead.

As ever, you cannot meet me in discussion without attempting to insult me. So i aint gonna bother with you. Better things to do than waste my time talking to "people" (since i cant swear) like you.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

silvi said:


> A lot of them are certainly thinking that way...sadly.
> But that's why I have become a Labour supporter. I want to help stop the rot before it's too late.
> (you could always wish me luck........)


 good luck


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> "The tories pushed through the Health & Social Care Act. Do you even know what that means for the NHS?"
> 
> I'll answer the point anyway. Yes I have read quite a lot of the fact sheets about the act although not every single one in detail granted. Here is the link if anyone is interested
> 
> ...


I've read them too and, apart from the language of 'competition' and choice' which I find contradictory at the very least, I'm horrified by what they don't say - and that is that this legislation has led to the use of more private companies by the NHS and as a result, large private corporations are benefiting to the tune of billions of £s while we are told that the NHS is struggling to cope financially.

We have also lost legislation that made it the legal duty of the Secretary of State to provide the NHS. And I find that worrying.

Caroline Lucas on this back in March:
The NHS is teetering on the brink of privatisation. We must stand up for it

And:
The Aims of the Campaign for the NHS Reinstatement Bill 2015:
http://www.nhsbill2015.org/our-aim/


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

porps said:


> Keep your judgements and your snide comments and assumptions to yourself. Why would i answer any of your questions after that? thats right - i wouldnt, unless i was a complete mug. If i was allowed to swear i would tell you what i think of YOU. But im not so i'll let you imagine it instead.
> 
> As ever, you cannot meet me in discussion without attempting to insult me. So i aint gonna bother with you. Better things to do than waste my time talking to "people" (since i cant swear) like you.


 I'm very happy to meet you in discussion, but whenever I try to ask where you stand, you just tell me you'd rather not stand up (and be counted) at all.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

silvi said:


> I've read them too and, apart from the language of 'competition' and choice' which I find contradictory at the very least, I'm horrified by what they don't say - and that is that this legislation has led to the use of more private companies by the NHS and as a result, large private corporations are benefiting to the tune of billions of £s while we are told that the NHS is struggling to cope financially.
> 
> We have also lost legislation that made it the legal duty of the Secretary of State to provide the NHS. And I find that worrying.
> 
> ...


Time will tell Silvi, I can only judge on the experience of myself and my family members and frankly I find some of the scaremongering that has been going on by people who didn't like the election result irresponsible. I'm far more worried about what the NHS has become and things like this which I posted about earlier in the thread

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/ne...h_watchdog_hits_out_at_hospital_over_scandal/

how can that be right? 1.9 million pension :Jawdrop:Rage this is not what the NHS should be all about and neither should it be a nursemaid to drunks who clog up A& E and the wards. I'm not talking about chronic alcoholics before anyone jumps on me and their resulting health conditions I'm talking about the fall out of clubs paralytic/unconscious in the street/vomiting people who feel entitled to be cleaned up and looked after for the night at our expense. Time to start making a charge for abuse of the system £50 or £100 per time on an increasing scale each time.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Catharinem said:


> I'm very happy to meet you in discussion, but whenever I try to ask where you stand, you just tell me you'd rather not stand up (and be counted) at all.


You two should have a soap. I'd watch it .


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Time will tell Silvi, I can only judge on the experience of myself and my family members and frankly I find some of the scaremongering that has been going on by people who didn't like the election result irresponsible. I'm far more worried about what the NHS has become and things like this which I posted about earlier in the thread
> 
> http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/ne...h_watchdog_hits_out_at_hospital_over_scandal/
> 
> how can that be right? 1.9 million pension :Jawdrop:Rage this is not what the NHS should be all about and neither should it be a nursemaid to drunks who clog up A& E and the wards. I'm not talking about chronic alcoholics before anyone jumps on me and their resulting health conditions I'm talking about the fall out of clubs paralytic/unconscious in the street/vomiting people who feel entitled to be cleaned up and looked after for the night at our expense. Time to start making a charge for abuse of the system £50 or £100 per time on an increasing scale each time.


Of course it isn't right that a trust can fiddle the books to re-employ someone at an increased salary who has already retired and taken a lump sum payment, but that is often the way that things work in the private sector, so why expect a trust which operates in tandem with the private sector to be any different?
If NHS trusts were abolished, this would go some way to halting this mismanagement of funding.

As to those 'scaremongering' about the NHS.... many of the reports still doing the rounds were published long before the GE and by people seriously worried about the NHS and the way things are going. It's just a shame that they didn't manage to get their message across to more voters....

Charge those who fall out of clubs for their treatment.... okay....as long as this wasn't misused...and led to even more paperwork...


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Satori said:


> You two should have a soap. I'd watch it .


sorry Satori, soap is over, as i said, done wasting my time responding to that... person.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Goblin said:


> Think most people knew there were no "good" options despite the rhetoric of the minority on here ignoring the faults of certain parties.


Mmm yes kind of agree, at least as regards the main three parties anyway. But it really annoys me when those who were doing the 'not voting so you can't make me' stance during the General Election then start broadcasting about politics on here as if they had voted  The apathy party could have made a difference to some areas. Perhaps not saved the NHS, I don't think anyone can do that but at least made a view known. I'll listen to those who voted even if I don't agree with the politics.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)




----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Putting words into badly designed, illegible memes makes it true.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Catharinem said:


> which party do you consider best able to deliver the NHS from the mess it's in?


Just by the fact that you have written this shows that you have no concept of what Porps is about or what Porps is saying


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

MollySmith said:


> The apathy party could have made a difference to some areas.


Sometimes it isn't apathy though but sheer exasperation of the lies and corruption. How can anyone vote for the pigs at the swill?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

MollySmith said:


> Putting words into badly designed, illegible memes makes it true.


I managed to read it. So it isnt illegible is it?


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

I see both sides 
If you vote for a party and they don't live up to your expectations (or do things you didn't want them to do), then you do have to take some of the blame I guess (although sometimes you would have to have second sight to know in advance....).
And if you don't vote, it could be said that you have no right to complain if the party you absolutely didn't want to get in got in.
But if you feel disenfranchised by all the political parties (or at least those standing in your area), what should you do?
And does that really bar you from complaining?

I voted Labour in the GE, because I thought they were the best of the bunch (would have voted green, but our local Green candidate was really thrown in only to make up the numbers - he had no idea about policies).
But I didn't vote during the years that Blair was in power (and wasn't quite old enough the first time round), because I just couldn't support 'New Labour' and did not agree with Lib-Dem or Tory policies.
Didn't stop me campaigning and demonstrating though....


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

to me, apathy is voting for people you know to be corrupt rather than stand against them.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

silvi said:


> And if you don't vote, it could be said that you have no right to complain if the party you absolutely didn't want to get in got in.


You can because you don't want any of the above in. How can anyone vote in something just because it's best of the worst? That's just stupid, and backing up their corrupt system. If no one voted, or just those likely to get a back hander..........then what would they do?

At least if people didn't just vote for the best of a bad bunch, the people would have some idea, just how many disillusioned citizens there actually were. Might even give them the power to make change...........................


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rona said:


> You can because you don't want any of the above in. How can anyone vote in something just because it's best of the worst? That's just stupid, and backing up their corrupt system. If no one voted, or just those likely to get a back hander..........then what would they do?
> 
> At least if people didn't just vote for the best of a bad bunch, the people would have some idea, just how many disillusioned citizens there actually were. Might even give them the power to make change...........................


I didn't quite mean that when I said I voted Labour last time around though.
I was so scared for the NHS, that I thought it was important not to waste my vote this time around.
I didn't agree with Labour's stance on welfare and still don't and they were insipid on some of their other policies.
But the thought of losing the NHS got me out to vote Labour - not perfect, but safer than the alternative.
This was one time for years when I felt that my vote was important. So I voted.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

silvi said:


> I didn't quite mean that when I said I voted Labour last time around though.
> I was so scared for the NHS, that I thought it was important not to waste my vote this time around.
> I didn't agree with Labour's stance on welfare and still don't and they were insipid on some of their other policies.
> But the thought of losing the NHS got me out to vote Labour - not perfect, but safer than the alternative.
> This was one time for years when I felt that my vote was important. So I voted.


Fair enough 

I just couldn't bring myself to make my mark for any of them. I couldn't vote in people I despise.

I've hardly ever come across a politician either national or even more so, those minor local egos that I would trust to make decisions on my behalf


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Satori said:


> You two should have a soap. I'd watch it .


Good cop, bad cop? Or more like the 2 Ronnies?


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

rona said:


> Sometimes it isn't apathy though but sheer exasperation of the lies and corruption. How can anyone vote for the pigs at the swill?





porps said:


> to me, apathy is voting for people you know to be corrupt rather than stand against them.


Fair enough - I don't want to share how I voted but I found a party who did match a majority of what I believe in so I felt it worth voting.

I'm all for not voting and actively making those reasons known through demonstrations, I've marched against many measures not all Tory, some Labour. It's the arm chair, keyboard warriors who think that replying to a thread on a pet forum is objecting to government and corruption in politics. The reasons why people don't vote need to be measured. There is no distinction between the can't be arsed and those with a genuine belief that there is no applicable party.

If I was a politician I'd ban memes obviously.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

porps said:


> to me, apathy is voting for people you know to be corrupt rather than stand against them.


 Good idea! Write your manisfesto and stand.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)




----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Catharinem said:


> Good cop, bad cop? Or more like the 2 Ronnies?


Jack and Vera with hints of Till death us do part.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

porps said:


>


or


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

MollySmith said:


> I found a party who did match a majority of what I believe in so I felt it worth voting.


Me too.


----------



## saffysmum (Feb 11, 2015)

Unfortunately, while people are debating who is right and who is wrong; who is the least corrupt and who is the best of a bad bunch, the privatisation of the NHS trundles on, unchallenged. Dave Camoron and Gideon are busy selling little bits of the health service to their mates, small enough that Joe Public doesn't notice, but big enough to line the pockets of the undeserving. Before long, we, the public, will have lost the lot and wonder how on earth it happened! The NHS must be removed from political agendas and allowed to run, free from Government interference. Yes, it certainly needs a bit of work and to streamline the service, but it needs to be managed by people who understand what it should do and how it should work.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Time will tell Silvi, I can only judge on the experience of myself and my family members and frankly I find some of the scaremongering that has been going on by people who didn't like the election result irresponsible. I'm far more worried about what the NHS has become and things like this which I posted about earlier in the thread
> 
> http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/ne...h_watchdog_hits_out_at_hospital_over_scandal/
> 
> how can that be right? 1.9 million pension :Jawdrop:Rage this is not what the NHS should be all about and neither should it be a nursemaid to drunks who clog up A& E and the wards. I'm not talking about chronic alcoholics before anyone jumps on me and their resulting health conditions I'm talking about the fall out of clubs paralytic/unconscious in the street/vomiting people who feel entitled to be cleaned up and looked after for the night at our expense. Time to start making a charge for abuse of the system £50 or £100 per time on an increasing scale each time.


But its not scaremongering if its true. People were desperately trying to get the message out before the election about the NHS & their other destructive policies. Its the truth that thousands are suffering & many have even died under IDS's welfare reforms. We now have record child poverty, dependence on foodbanks & homelessness. Disabled people have had their benefits slashed or removed. Then theres the attack on our environment & wildlife, TTIP on the horizon. Jeezus, the list is endless. So depressing & its only going to get worse.



porps said:


> to me, apathy is voting for people you know to be corrupt rather than stand against them.


Most of them are corrupt, but there are still a few decent ones left. Caroline Lucas is genuine & a few on the labour benches too. Have you heard of Jeremy Corbyn?



silvi said:


> I didn't quite mean that when I said I voted Labour last time around though.
> I was so scared for the NHS, that I thought it was important not to waste my vote this time around.
> I didn't agree with Labour's stance on welfare and still don't and they were insipid on some of their other policies.
> But the thought of losing the NHS got me out to vote Labour - not perfect, but safer than the alternative.
> This was one time for years when I felt that my vote was important. So I voted.


Same here, I voted labour out of sheer desperation for our badgers, wildlife & environment that the tories are hell bent on destroying & of course they were also the best option for the NHS & welfare state. With no green candidate it was an easy decision for me.



rona said:


> Fair enough
> 
> I just couldn't bring myself to make my mark for any of them. I couldn't vote in people I despise.
> 
> I've hardly ever come across a politician either national or even more so, those minor local egos that I would trust to make decisions on my behalf


If you didn't vote for the tories were you just glad others did when you said 'Common sense prevails' after they won the election then?



rottiepointerhouse said:


> Oh come on Noush I don't think you can say all hospitals are going to end up like Mid Staffs. I'm not against change and change is needed so if that means some contracts for some things to go private enterprises then so be it. I think its exactly to avoid a situation like Mid Staffs or like a close family friend of ours dropping dead while waiting to see a cardiac surgeon for over 6 months (under labour I might add) happening that we need to be flexible and if the private sector can do it better/quicker then use them.


 Have you watched those two videos I posted RPH? If we don't stop them that's exactly what we'll end up with. Privatisation is never cost effective. The Commonwealth Fund surveyed 17 countries & our NHS came out top as the most cost effective, while the USA came bottom. And that's the model they are moving us to.

Have you seen the e-petition calling for Hunts sacking? The moral amongst NHS staff has never been so low.

*Why do NHS staff have no confidence in Hunt?*

If seven day service proposals and some belligerent remarks about doctors were all that had angered NHS professionals, there would be no petition.

Jeremy Hunt has a track record of bad decisions, poor policy and failure to engage with professionals. This was the last straw. The NHS sat up, took note and decided enough was enough.

Outlined below are just some of the many reasons NHS workers have signed to support a vote of no confidence in Jeremy Hunt:


Co-authorship of a book advocating the denationalisation of the NHS 
An enduring lack of engagement with NHS professionals and a refusal to involve them in shaping the future of the NHS 
A non-existent understanding of what happens 'on the shop floor' and how the NHS really functions as a health service
A promise of seven day GP working services with no credible plans for addressing the GP workforce crisis
Suspension of the NICE safe staffing programmes focused on minimum safe nursing levels for inpatient wards
An acute care crisis with deteriorating accident and emergency performances, closure of inpatient beds and personal haranguing of NHS trusts repeatedly missing targets
A calamitous lack of understanding of evidence based medicine leading to the promotion of homeopathy as an evidence based intervention (it's not) and misleading information about drug advances such as dementia drug solanezumab
Lack of apology for patient breach of confidentiality despite his own introduction of Duty of Candour regulations - if this had been a health professional there would have been a disciplinary proceeding likely leading to a Fitness to Practice hearing
Persistent lies, propaganda and misinformation to the public about the NHS 
Complete lack of experience in the healthcare sector
Closure of emergency services such as West London Accident & Emergency departments and attempted closure of Lewisham Accident & Emergency despite the A&E crisis
Overseeing progressive privatisation of the service which clearly does not work
Six-fold exaggeration of costs incurred by foreign nationals using the NHS
Public health budget cuts of £200 million despite a 'focus on public health and prevention'
*Regarding Mr Hunt, the message is becoming even louder and clearer. NHS staff and the public have had enough.*

Dr Daniel Furmedge, Dr Benjamin Dean, Dr Hugh Harvey, Dr Natalie Silvey, Dr Mohsin Khan, Dr Zoe Norris, Miss Stella Dilke, Miss Stella Vig, Dr Clive Peedell, Mr Vimal Gokani and Mr Mike Henley on behalf of 196 900 signatories. Supported by GP Survival.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

saffysmum said:


> The NHS must be removed from political agendas and allowed to run, free from Government interference. Yes, it certainly needs a bit of work and to streamline the service, but it needs to be managed by people who understand what it should do and how it should work.


Sounds like privatisation to me.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

saffysmum said:


> Unfortunately, while people are debating who is right and who is wrong; who is the least corrupt and who is the best of a bad bunch, the privatisation of the NHS trundles on, unchallenged. Dave Camoron and Gideon are busy selling little bits of the health service to their mates, small enough that Joe Public doesn't notice, but big enough to line the pockets of the undeserving. Before long, we, the public, will have lost the lot and wonder how on earth it happened! The NHS must be removed from political agendas and allowed to run, free from Government interference. Yes, it certainly needs a bit of work and to streamline the service, but it needs to be managed by people who understand what it should do and how it should work.


I agree, but people are challenging it. Look at all the protests & marches - the media just don't report it. So what do we do? how do we get the message out to the masses when the media are hiding the truth about whats happening? I don't know :/

Theres another demo on Saturday, activism probably is our only hope of saving it now.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Most of them are corrupt, but there are still a few decent ones left. Caroline Lucas is genuine & a few on the labour benches too. Have you heard of Jeremy Corbyn?


Yeah i've heard of both of those 2. Do i have any reason to think they'll be any different to every single other poilitician who ever got into power? 'fraid not. If they would be different they will never be allowed to be in power.

We dont need masters.


----------



## saffysmum (Feb 11, 2015)

Satori said:


> Sounds like privatisation to me.


No, basically what I was getting at is the non-essential staff, the managers who have no clue what the NHS is actually supposed to do, the stupid rule that the NHS is only allowed to procure equipment and items from certain places, rather than shopping around for the best prices. The stupidity of constantly repairing knackered bits of equipment, when it would actually be cheaper to buy new and maintain properly. THAT'S what I meant by 'streamlining'


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

porps said:


>


No, I'm sure you wouldn't be that bad! Better than every other politician ever born anyway, and that's got to be a good start. Don't be so hard on yourself.


----------



## saffysmum (Feb 11, 2015)

porps said:


> Yeah i've heard of both of those 2. Do i have any reason to think they'll be any different to every single other poilitician who ever got into power? 'fraid not. If they would be different they will never be allowed to be in power.
> 
> We dont need masters.


They probably won't be any different, but it would sure give the Establishment a kick up the arse(nal) if they were voted in. At the end of the day, the liklihood of Corbyn actually getting in, is quite high because people are voting for him as a protest, because Bliar and his mates are telling everyone NOT to vote for him!


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Satori said:


> Jack and Vera with hints of Till death us do part.


 Never heard of Jack and Vera

Is Til Death Us Do Part the old misery guts Victor Meldrew and his long suffering, but cheerful wife? Might not be natural causes!


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> Look at all the protests & marches - the media just don't report it.


That's because a ramshackle bunch of unemployed layabouts, bored unwashed students and hairy-arsed ***** having a jolly on the streets is hardly news. Nobody of import really cares. It's just the little folk being noisy.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

@noushka05 no I'm afraid I haven't watched the videos but will try to when I get the time. Do you know back in the days when I worked in the NHS and again in social services there were always factions who supported the government of the time and those who didn't and spread scare stories about how awful everything was going to be. So there is a petition running to get rid of Jeremy Hunt and its been signed by nearly 200,000 - the NHS employs approx 1.4 million so I assume the rest are perfectly happy with him. Alan Milburn was the longest serving labour health secretary I believe (most seem to only do the job for a couple of years before being moved - bit of a poison chalice) and look what they are saying about him now

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ex-labour-health-secretary-alan-milburn-5061380

We really do need to somehow get the NHS out of this political merry go round.


----------



## saffysmum (Feb 11, 2015)

Catharinem said:


> Never heard of Jack and Vera
> 
> Is Til Death Us Do Part the old misery guts Victor Meldrew and his long suffering, but cheerful wife? Might not be natural causes!


Jack and Vera I'm guessing are from Coronation Street, and Til Death Us Do Part was Alf Garnett and his long suffering family. His opinions these days would make your hair curl! Racist, sexist, any other kind of 'ist' you can think of, which is why it'll never be repeated


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

[



Satori said:


> That's because a ramshackle bunch of unemployed layabouts, bored unwashed students and hairy-arsed ***** having a jolly on the streets is hardly news. Nobody of import really cares. It's just the little folk being noisy.


LOL I know I probably should laugh at this, but I cant help it.:Hilarious

And look at them, they're not scruffs! They look like fine upstanding plebs to me, out there fighting to save our NHS.






rottiepointerhouse said:


> @noushka05 no I'm afraid I haven't watched the videos but will try to when I get the time. Do you know back in the days when I worked in the NHS and again in social services there were always factions who supported the government of the time and those who didn't and spread scare stories about how awful everything was going to be. So there is a petition running to get rid of Jeremy Hunt and its been signed by nearly 200,000 - the NHS employs approx 1.4 million so I assume the rest are perfectly happy with him. Alan Milburn was the longest serving labour health secretary I believe (most seem to only do the job for a couple of years before being moved - bit of a poison chalice) and look what they are saying about him now
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ex-labour-health-secretary-alan-milburn-5061380
> 
> We really do need to somehow get the NHS out of this political merry go round.


Alan Milburn is just a grasping, self serving neoliberal. New labour through & through. Its time charlatans like him were ousted from the party so it can get back to its grass roots. And this is why the blairites are crawling out of the woodwork to attack the face of true labour, Jeremy Corbyn. They are frightened to death labour will go back to their true values of representing the people.

65 tory MPs stand to benefit from NHS privatisation. Conflict of interests on a gross scale. Shameful.

*Executive Summary A Unite investigation has uncovered 65 Tory and 6 Liberal Democrat MPs who have previous or current financial links to companies or individuals trying to profit from the sell-off of the NHS. All of them voted for the Health and Social Care Act, which created a legal mechanism to force commissioners to put NHS services up for sale. The MPs identified have these interests in every stage of the healthcare value chain from private equity firms that fund private healthcare companies, to shareholdings in those same companies. They are Chairman, partners, advisors, and owners in areas that include pharmaceuticals, care homes, private health insurance, as well as lobbying, media and recruitment for the sector. When the Health and Social Care Act was still being debated in parliament, Nadhim Zahawi said it was a "brilliant piece of legislation". It certainly helped some people. 'SThree', the recruitment company where Mr Zahawi is a non-executive director has gained £2.6 million in revenue by filling vacancies created by the Act. Previous Unite research published in the Guardian, confirmed that over £1.5 billion of NHS funding went to just 15 companies connected to 23 Tory MPs and Lords through a combination of donations, shares, employment and ownership. 1 This report shows that that was just the tip of the iceberg. Twelve of those are listed belo*

http://www.peoplesnhs.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/FINAL-MP-Dossier1.pdf

All that said about Alan & still the NHS survived to be the best in the world. However. if we allow the tories finish the job the NHS will be finished forever & we will be left with a dysfunctional, astronomically expensive American style service.

Just look at the evidence already RPH. For the first time in history midwives striked. Ambulance, cancer targets, AE targets missed again & again. Funny that targets are consistently missed only since they came to power, no? They are deliberately setting up to fail the best, most cost effective health service in the world so the corporate vultures can move in.

*Waiting time targets for treating patients referred with suspected cancer have been missed for a sixth successive quarter, according to *new NHS England figures(link is external).
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/abo...me-figures-show-thousands-still-facing-delays



porps said:


> Yeah i've heard of both of those 2. Do i have any reason to think they'll be any different to every single other politician who ever got into power? 'fraid not. If they would be different they will never be allowed to be in power.
> 
> We dont need masters.


The neoliberals (in both the blue AND the red corner) are pulling out all the stops to smear & discredit JC. They are scared to death of him, they don't want a honourable man in power that might just shake up the establishment. If change for the better doesn't happen soon though, I also hope the masses will rise up, because if they don't the 1% will destroy everything with their insatiable greed.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Satori said:


> That's because a ramshackle bunch of unemployed layabouts, bored unwashed students and hairy-arsed ***** having a jolly on the streets is hardly news. Nobody of import really cares. It's just the little folk being noisy.


*I see from this statement you have been brain washed. Funny how the unemployed get blamed for everything these days.*


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

silvi said:


> I 'liked' that post because I agree with your conclusion. I also think that ignoring Labour errors while attacking Tory errors and plans is self-defeating, because it just leads to the "you did that", "yes, but you did that", endless argument.


What.. like most of these threads which turn into political.. hate the tories ones where some people only are prepared to accept one sided discussion points rather than answer the simple starting question?


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

saffysmum said:


> Jack and Vera I'm guessing are from Coronation Street, and Til Death Us Do Part was Alf Garnett and his long suffering family. His opinions these days would make your hair curl! Racist, sexist, any other kind of 'ist' you can think of, which is why it'll never be repeated


OK thanks, don't follow soaps. Though not sure how relevant to our little spats. I would say nobody should be killed, regardless of race or sex, as there have to be better ways of dealing with issues and you can never tell the consequences of your actions further down the line. Porps seems happy to have bankers, politicians etc put to death in horrible ways, but not seen any signs of him being racist or sexist, only an armchair psychopath!


----------



## ForestWomble (May 2, 2013)

Happy Paws said:


> May be we should stop giving money abroad until we sort the NHS out, then worry about others. Charity begins at home so they say.


I fully agree with this ^^


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Animallover26 said:


> I fully agree with this ^^





Happy Paws said:


> May be we should stop giving money abroad until we sort the NHS out, then worry about others. Charity begins at home so they say.


Can't we be compassionate to those in poverty who really need us, as well as looking after our own citizens? For instance, should we let people die an agonising death from Ebola in Africa, to protect the funding for coeliacs' gluten free cake and biscuits ( not bread and flour, but cake and biscuits!). How could you explain that sort of reasoning to the orphans left behind?


----------



## ForestWomble (May 2, 2013)

Catharinem said:


> Can't we be compassionate to those in poverty who really need us, as well as looking after our own citizens? For instance, should we let people die an agonising death from Ebola in Africa, to protect the funding for coeliacs' gluten free cake and biscuits ( not bread and flour, but cake and biscuits!). How could you explain that sort of reasoning to the orphans left behind?


We have loads of people here in the UK who are in poverty, should we ignore them while sending money to other countries to feed the rich and those who are poor continue?
Your example of Ebola verses coeliac gluten free cake is stupid, if that was reality then I'd say send the money to help sort out Ebola, but that's not what is meant.

The topic is the NHS, I personally feel that we need to say 'right, what money do we have, use it to help the NHS, disabled, those in poverty etc etc etc, only once our country is in a better place should we be sending money abroad and paying for war etc'


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

MollySmith said:


> Putting words into badly designed, illegible memes makes it true.


Especially when some of the words are so obnoxious and juvenile....


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

I have a very personal reason why I won't pay anymore to the NHS, because it wasn't there for me when I needed it the most. I am not going to be drawn on any more reasons as I know that will start of a debate that I am in no mood to deal with on PF at the best of times, and certainly not today. But if guidelines are set by NICE they need to be followed and postcode lottery is cruel. As it is I can't afford it, I had to go private which doesn't sit well with me ethically.


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

Animallover26 said:


> We have loads of people here in the UK who are in poverty, should we ignore them while sending money to other countries to feed the rich and those who are poor continue?
> Your example of Ebola verses coeliac gluten free cake is stupid, if that was reality then I'd say send the money to help sort out Ebola, but that's not what is meant.
> 
> The topic is the NHS, I personally feel that we need to say 'right, what money do we have, use it to help the NHS, disabled, those in poverty etc etc etc, only once our country is in a better place should we be sending money abroad and paying for war etc'


Foreign aid accounts for around 0.7% of the U.Ks gross national income. So it's around £38 for someone earning £30k a year (if my maths is correct).

There are lots of myths about foreign aid and while I do think we need to closer monitor what countries we give aid to, I do think it is a good think to do.

Who is to decide and what measurements can be put in place to decide that the UK is "better off" that we can now give aid?

As for the original question around NHS, I don't believe that throwing money at the NHS is the answer, while I love the NHS for its work and for what it stands for, what it needs (as suggested already) is for someone to take a good hard review of the whole system, otherwise you may as well just throw the money away if it is not spent wisely.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Catharinem said:


> Can't we be compassionate to those in poverty who really need us, as well as looking after our own citizens? For instance, should we let people die an agonising death from Ebola in Africa, to protect the funding for coeliacs' gluten free cake and biscuits ( not bread and flour, but cake and biscuits!). How could you explain that sort of reasoning to the orphans left behind?


Of course we can be compassionate but the NHS was not set up to treat the sick of the whole world much as I'm sure most people would love it to. People who have paid tax and NI contributions and our own citizens (of whatever nationality) should be its priority. Our overseas aid budget should be used to help in the situations you describe rather than being wasted on some of the ridiculous projects it has been. Of course those of us who can afford to can support charities helping in Africa which is how it should be not the NHS.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

MollySmith said:


> I have a very personal reason why I won't pay anymore to the NHS, because it wasn't there for me when I needed it the most. I am not going to be drawn on any more reasons as I know that will start of a debate that I am in no mood to deal with on PF at the best of times, and certainly not today. But if guidelines are set by NICE they need to be followed and postcode lottery is cruel. As it is I can't afford it, I had to go private which doesn't sit well with me ethically.


Totally understand that one.
And the postcode lottery is disgraceful as well as cruel.
But I would also say that sometimes NICE guidelines are cruel too.
(will make this short as it is going off at a tangent - but my Mum has osteopenia bordering now on osteoporisis. NICE guidelines say that the only medication she can take to help is bisphosphonates [relatively cheap]. She is not old enough or ill enough to take the more effective [but also more expensive] medication - strontium ranelate. For that, she has to wait either until she is 10 years older, or when her bone scans are really bad. She cannot take bisphosphonates for a number of reasons, but NICE guidelines don't cover that, so she's left with vitamin D3 and a healthy diet and exercise - okay for now, but...).
End of off-tangent post


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Goblin said:


> What.. like most of these threads which turn into political.. hate the tories ones where some people only are prepared to accept one sided discussion points rather than answer the simple starting question?


Have you read all the answers on this thread?
I agree that there are times when threads go that way, but in this case I think that most of the answers have been quite scathing of both main political parties.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Animallover26 said:


> We have loads of people here in the UK who are in poverty, should we ignore them while sending money to other countries to feed the rich and those who are poor continue?
> Your example of Ebola verses coeliac gluten free cake is stupid, if that was reality then I'd say send the money to help sort out Ebola, but that's not what is meant.
> 
> The topic is the NHS, I personally feel that we need to say 'right, what money do we have, use it to help the NHS, disabled, those in poverty etc etc etc, only once our country is in a better place should we be sending money abroad and paying for war etc'


Although I agree that the system of foreign aid as we have it isn't effective enough, and I agree that we do need to think of people suffering 'at home', I don't think it is that simple.
Perhaps if western governments were less inclined to prop up the wrong regimes and ignore the fact that money often goes into the wrong hands, then a lot of the poverty and suffering in the world wouldn't happen in the first place. Surely that would be the best way to tackle this - at source?

As to @Catharinem referring to Ebola versus gluten free cake, it does sound strange, but considering the debate on this thread and the debate going on within government right now, it is kind of relevant. Unless you think that foreign aid spending and NHS cash are totally split from each other?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> The neoliberals (in both the blue AND the red corner) are pulling out all the stops to smear & discredit JC. They are scared to death of him, they don't want a honourable man in power that might just shake up the establishment. If change for the better doesn't happen soon though, I also hope the masses will rise up, because if they don't the 1% will destroy everything with their insatiable greed.


Yeah i like the fact that they fear him, and he sure talks a good game... but are we really so naive that we think a politician ever tells the truth? Have we not seen countless politicians gain power then go back on everything theyve said? Why would anyone think this one would be different? i dont get it... are we so forgetful? Havent we learned by now that honest politcian is a contradiction of terms?

here's your politics summed up - 




These people are vile self serving corrupt pedos. The system is rotten to the core and even if you beleive that corbyn is genuine and honest, do you actually think he can make a difference? He will be destroyed if he doesnt fall in line. The only people who can make a change is the people. And the majority are too stupid, or too selfish, or too cowed to even consider the possibility of change. Because the mainstream media tells them what to think. So they just keep voting, voting for the same system to continue for another 4 years... and another 4, and another and another... red or blue, it doesn't matter. They are one and the same. When you vote you are saying "i wish to be ruled. I wish for hypocrisy and corruption and inequality- and i wish that for the rest of my countrymen too."


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

silvi said:


> Totally understand that one.
> And the postcode lottery is disgraceful as well as cruel.
> But I would also say that sometimes NICE guidelines are cruel too.
> (will make this short as it is going off at a tangent - but my Mum has osteopenia bordering now on osteoporisis. NICE guidelines say that the only medication she can take to help is bisphosphonates [relatively cheap]. She is not old enough or ill enough to take the more effective [but also more expensive] medication - strontium ranelate. For that, she has to wait either until she is 10 years older, or when her bone scans are really bad. She cannot take bisphosphonates for a number of reasons, but NICE guidelines don't cover that, so she's left with vitamin D3 and a healthy diet and exercise - okay for now, but...).
> End of off-tangent post


NICE are far from cooperative, we had little response from them when it came to battling with our PCT. Yes, they are cruel. I am sorry to hear about your mum, that response is ridiculous and must be stressful for her, and her family.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Of course we can be compassionate but the NHS was not set up to treat the sick of the whole world much as I'm sure most people would love it to. People who have paid tax and NI contributions and our own citizens (of whatever nationality) should be its priority. Our overseas aid budget should be used to help in the situations you describe rather than being wasted on some of the ridiculous projects it has been. Of course those of us who can afford to can support charities helping in Africa which is how it should be not the NHS.


Completely agree NHS can't pay for the whole world. My post was in response to the suggestion that there should be no overseas aid until we have sorted out problems at home ( "charity begins at home" as it was phrased). The NHS has problems, which need someone to taker a good hard look at. I for one believe money could be saved by not providing prescription cake, there must be other similarly ridiculous examples of money being wasted. I was not suggesting foreign aid come from the NHS budget.

This said, withdrawing foreign aid until such point as we have sorted out all our domestic issues would make us the lessor human beings. We are a rich enough country. Yes we have poverty, but not at the same level, we don't have orphans in their thousands left by parents dying of AIDS or Ebola. We don't have many of our children dying before age 5 from entirely preventable diseases. The foreign aid budget is remarkably low, it has been mentioned above as around £38 a year for someone earning £30K - that's about one meal out for a couple at a pretty cheap pub. Well worth it for the relief of human suffering.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

porps said:


> Yeah i like the fact that they fear him, and he sure talks a good game... but are we really so naive that we think a politician ever tells the truth? Have we not seen countless politicians gain power then go back on everything theyve said? Why would anyone think this one would be different? i dont get it... are we so forgetful? Havent we learned by now that honest politcian is a contradiction of terms?
> 
> here's your politics summed up -
> 
> ...


How utterly ridiculous. Now all politicians are paedophiles? Perhaps there is a higher percentage of paedophiles in a certain party? In drivers of different makes of car? In certain dog breed owners? In other jobs? How about school bus drivers, maybe they like being surrounded by children? You talk utter bxxxxxxs.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)




----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Catharinem said:


> Completely agree NHS can't pay for the whole world. My post was in response to the suggestion that there should be no overseas aid until we have sorted out problems at home ( "charity begins at home" as it was phrased). The NHS has problems, which need someone to taker a good hard look at. I for one believe money could be saved by not providing prescription cake, there must be other similarly ridiculous examples of money being wasted. I was not suggesting foreign aid come from the NHS budget.
> 
> This said, withdrawing foreign aid until such point as we have sorted out all our domestic issues would make us the lessor human beings. We are a rich enough country. Yes we have poverty, but not at the same level, we don't have orphans in their thousands left by parents dying of AIDS or Ebola. We don't have many of our children dying before age 5 from entirely preventable diseases. The foreign aid budget is remarkably low, it has been mentioned above as around £38 a year for someone earning £30K - that's about one meal out for a couple at a pretty cheap pub. Well worth it for the relief of human suffering.


Of course £38 per year is well worth spending to end suffering if only we knew that was what it was spent on I would have no objection but some of the schemes they spend it on are just laughable like building 14 high tech landing sites in coastal villages to help Madagascan fisherman - only problem was they weren't consulted and didn't want or use them. I would far prefer to pay that £38 to a charity of my choice - one of the reasons I support Mary's Meals and their lay an extra place at the table campaign. No country with a space programme should be in receipt of our aid either.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> [
> 
> LOL I know I probably should laugh at this, but I cant help it.:Hilarious


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

JANICE199 said:


> *I see from this statement you have been brain washed. Funny how the unemployed get blamed for everything these days.*


Bah!

Shell-suit wearing, beer-swilling, chain-smoking Jeremy Kyle fans the lot of 'em.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Satori said:


>


lol

Oops & I just spotted another glaring error by me! - 'shouldn't' laugh, not should. At least you knew what I meant lol

I watched this & it made me think of you Satori - 'trolling is an art form ...'


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

porps said:


> Yeah i like the fact that they fear him, and he sure talks a good game... but are we really so naive that we think a politician ever tells the truth? Have we not seen countless politicians gain power then go back on everything theyve said? Why would anyone think this one would be different? i dont get it... are we so forgetful? Havent we learned by now that honest politcian is a contradiction of terms?
> 
> here's your politics summed up -
> 
> ...


Theres always an exception - and looking at Corbyns past record I truly believe he is a man of principle that cannot be corrupted. You are right about the system though, that is corrupt & will do everything possible to maintain the status quo. And Russell nails it again -


----------

