General Election

There must be more to life than football?
User avatar
Dan
Unemployed ex-pro
Posts: 6565
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:08 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Dan » Fri Jul 15, 2016 2:26 pm

mcteeth wrote:
mrblackbat wrote: And frankly, I don't give a shit if anyone makes a profit if the service is good.
I think you're wrong.
ooh, here we go :)
Image

User avatar
Gibbon
Promising manager
Posts: 17303
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 am
Location: Location: Location
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Gibbon » Fri Jul 15, 2016 2:36 pm

Dan wrote:
mcteeth wrote:
mrblackbat wrote: And frankly, I don't give a shit if anyone makes a profit if the service is good.
I think you're wrong.
ooh, here we go :)
Image
:lol:

Actually, I think this is the real touchpaper...
mcteeth wrote:...it is obvious to anyone with half a brain...

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14182
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Fri Jul 15, 2016 2:44 pm

mcteeth wrote:
mrblackbat wrote:Yes I realise that its not all about pay disputes. The problem with the NHS is that its a megalith; its far too large to be able to operate as an efficient system, so the sensible solution is to break it up into smaller, more autonomous areas.

Are you aware that many of the companies who are taking on the NHS contracts are not for profit companies like the Red Cross?

And frankly, I don't give a shit if anyone makes a profit if the service is good. That's what I really don't get, I don't see how it has any importance whatsoever if the service is good. Afterall, all the individuals working there make a profit; they get their pay check at the end of the day. It seems to me, that it's only when certain people make a profit that people get all uppity.
You talk about smaller autonomous units and yet the direction of travel is the new NHS Vanguards, GP Federations and devolution of power, in Manchester for example.
Exactly, which would be smaller, more autonomous units.....

To be honest, the other thing that's ridiculous is the concept of free health care for all. Frankly, I don't need free healthcare, nor should I be given it: I can more than afford to pay for private healthcare. Instead, I much prefer the Japanese model, whereby those that cannot afford healthcare get it for free, paid for by all through taxation, and then there is a sliding scale of percentage of payment on use as you move up through the tax brackets, with those in the highest tax brackets paying 30% cost of their treatment. Payment is completely waived for those whose income is lowest, and for those who are homeless. You could quite easily implement this going all the way up to 100% cost for the highest tax brackets, in my opinion.

That way, you can ditch the clusterfuck that is the NHS altogether, and instead be sure that everyone has the healthcare they need without it bankrupting the country at the same time.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 26727
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Rover the Top » Fri Jul 15, 2016 2:54 pm

Gibbon wrote: And yes, agree with Ethiaa, tax increases would make sense as long as they target those who can afford them. As it should be.
I think a better system would be to allow anyone who feels they should be paying more tax to do so voluntarily. That way, anyone who wants to give the government all their money to spend will be happy, and anyone who feels they should be able to use their hard-earned cash however they want will be happy. Win-win.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14182
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Fri Jul 15, 2016 2:57 pm

A few other interesting facts about spending on healthcare in this country, is that the coalition government and conservative government both spent far more on health services than the New Labour governement, with it being consistently being around 83% of GDP under the tories, whilst closer to 78% under labour.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14182
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Fri Jul 15, 2016 2:58 pm

Ethiaa wrote:
Rover the Top wrote:
mrblackbat wrote: And frankly, I don't give a shit if anyone makes a profit if the service is good. That's what I really don't get, I don't see how it has any importance whatsoever if the service is good. Afterall, all the individuals working there make a profit; they get their pay check at the end of the day. It seems to me, that it's only when certain people make a profit that people get all uppity.
If they're making a profit, you can try and tax them on it before they get it out of the country... :whistle:
Fixed for you
If you make the UK the lo rater tax haven, they'll be bringing their taxes from elsewhere to here.... ;)

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 26727
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Rover the Top » Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:04 pm

mrblackbat wrote:A few other interesting facts about spending on healthcare in this country, is that the coalition government and conservative government both spent far more on health services than the New Labour governement, with it being consistently being around 83% of GDP under the tories, whilst closer to 78% under labour.
Yeah, but that was before the Trots took over Labour. ;)

mcteeth
Ageing international
Posts: 3388
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:44 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mcteeth » Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:26 pm

Well the other big issue with the modern NHS and the commissioning system is that it is aligned to and rewarded by activity, due to payment by results, not geared towards prevention.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14182
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:47 pm

That's definitely a fair point, but one that's probably been influenced by the general public clamour that the problem is down to not enough doctors and nurses.

User avatar
wrinks_89
Valued squad member
Posts: 585
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2016 3:27 am
Location: Manchester
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by wrinks_89 » Fri Jul 15, 2016 8:20 pm

We need a 'round of applause' icon

User avatar
Gibbon
Promising manager
Posts: 17303
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 am
Location: Location: Location
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Gibbon » Fri Jul 15, 2016 8:22 pm

:lol:

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14182
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Fri Aug 19, 2016 8:44 am

Corbyn shows that he neither understands alliances, nor that appeasement is actually a precursor to war rather than a peaceful stance.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37125824

The whole point of the guarantee of the entire alliance providing military intervention in the case of an alliance member being attacked removes the risk of the attack happening, it is the diplomacy.

User avatar
Gibbon
Promising manager
Posts: 17303
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 am
Location: Location: Location
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Gibbon » Fri Aug 19, 2016 9:25 am

Is there more in the video? Because the text recap just seems to be him saying that he'd try and build relations with Russia in the first place so that an invasion wouldn't happen. I'm not sure why you think that's a bad thing, it's certainly not appeasement.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14182
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Fri Aug 19, 2016 10:11 am

The video shows him repeatedly trying to avoid answering the question: if Russia attacked an ally, would you respond with military action. In other words, no, but he didn't want to actually say no. Instead he constantly talked about trying to prevent that from happening, which isn't what was being asked.

By contrast, Owen Smith answered with "yes, but I hope it wouldn't come to them invading" which would be the correct answer.

Relations with Russia hasn't stopped them invading the Ukraine when they were threatening to join Nato, nor aggression in the middle east. Sometimes, you have to be practical and realise that when you're dealing with an aggressive nation, the threat of aggression is the only thing that maintains the peace.

You can read more here:- http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk ... our-leader

User avatar
theadore
Inexperienced manager
Posts: 9486
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:25 pm

Re: General Election

Post by theadore » Fri Aug 19, 2016 10:42 am

The idea that a nation, particularly one like Russia can't spot an empty threat when they see one is a bit ridiculous. The very idea of a western invasion of Russia is laughable, we lack the means as well as the appitite for it.

Post Reply