General Election

There must be more to life than football?
User avatar
Ethiaa
Site Admin
Posts: 13072
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:22 am
Location: Preston
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Ethiaa » Fri Jul 15, 2016 10:04 am

I want tax increases :shrug:

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 26638
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Rover the Top » Fri Jul 15, 2016 10:06 am

Are you "everyone"?

User avatar
Gibbon
Promising manager
Posts: 17159
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 am
Location: Location: Location
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Gibbon » Fri Jul 15, 2016 10:16 am

Rover the Top wrote:
mrblackbat wrote:Though Hunt is actually doing quite a good job in many areas of the NHS. Such as the ambulance service contracts being handed to the Red Cross in the North East; response rates are fantastic compared to how they were previously.

But of course, everyone just thinks he's evil because junior doctors say so.
"Everyone" wants an efficient, free to use, nationalised health service. "Everyone" wants a competent doctor on hand whenever they need or just want one. But then "everyone" wants those doctors to have stress-free jobs, with manageable workloads, normal hours and rewarding pay packets. And "everyone" doesn't want tax increases or other services and benefits to be cut to fund it all. Oh yes, and god forbid we make use of the advantages of privatisation to improve the system, it's much better to have people suffer and die than have someone make some money from it... does that apply to doctors too?

Of course "everyone" hates Hunt, he's a Tory trying to manage the impossible... but then "everyone" isn't everyone.
This is a man who's been in favour of introducing an american model insurance system for years.

It's not even particularly about him or even exclusively a Tory problem, options are to be debated in the house of Lords soon and then I guess we'll see what happens.

And yes, agree with Ethiaa, tax increases would make sense as long as they target those who can afford them. As it should be.

User avatar
Ethiaa
Site Admin
Posts: 13072
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:22 am
Location: Preston
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Ethiaa » Fri Jul 15, 2016 10:23 am

Rover the Top wrote:Are you "everyone"?
I can be if it helps

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 13936
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Fri Jul 15, 2016 10:39 am

Gibbon wrote:
mrblackbat wrote:
Ethiaa wrote:
True dat. And pretty much anyone related to health research who works with the NHS. Probably all just a coincidence mind.
I think I've worked many places where "everyone" who worked there hated the boss and thought they were underpaid. :shrug:

Tough job being in charge of anything.
You realise it's not all about pay disputes? It's largely about the systematic reduction of funding and resources in order to cause services to fail and allow backdoor privatisation.

If you make it impossible for a system to operate efficiently then repolace it with a private company who doesn't suffer those same restrictions, then of course you'll be able to flag it as an improvement and a success. Of course our taxes are then being funnelled into private profits rather than public, but what the hell, right?
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.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 13936
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Fri Jul 15, 2016 10:39 am

Ethiaa wrote:I actually don't think they are underpaid anyway :D
I don't either, but they do. ;)

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 13936
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Fri Jul 15, 2016 10:41 am

Ethiaa wrote:I want tax increases :shrug:
I want tax decreases, but a bigger economy and overall net tax recovery increased. :shrug:

User avatar
Ethiaa
Site Admin
Posts: 13072
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:22 am
Location: Preston
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Ethiaa » Fri Jul 15, 2016 10:43 am

mrblackbat wrote:
Ethiaa wrote:I want tax increases :shrug:
I want tax decreases, but a bigger economy and overall net tax recovery increased. :shrug:
Good luck with that helping the majority

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 26638
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Rover the Top » Fri Jul 15, 2016 11:13 am

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 tax them on it... :whistle:

User avatar
Ethiaa
Site Admin
Posts: 13072
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:22 am
Location: Preston
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Ethiaa » Fri Jul 15, 2016 11:15 am

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

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 26638
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Rover the Top » Fri Jul 15, 2016 11:31 am

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
Sorry, I was playing along in this fantasy world where you can tax "those who can afford it" however much you like without any sort of knock-on effects. ;)

User avatar
Ethiaa
Site Admin
Posts: 13072
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:22 am
Location: Preston
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Ethiaa » Fri Jul 15, 2016 11:46 am

Interestingly, the first step might be getting rid of the minimum wage.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 13936
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Fri Jul 15, 2016 11:50 am

Ethiaa wrote:
mrblackbat wrote:
Ethiaa wrote:I want tax increases :shrug:
I want tax decreases, but a bigger economy and overall net tax recovery increased. :shrug:
Good luck with that helping the majority
It does. You have more net tax to spend on everyone. And there are more jobs and a stronger economy. What's not to want from that? Afterall, seems to work perfectly well for the likes of Norway, Sweden and Switzerland, as examples.

User avatar
Ethiaa
Site Admin
Posts: 13072
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:22 am
Location: Preston
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Ethiaa » Fri Jul 15, 2016 11:53 am

Assumptions that a) you can collect the tax, and b) collecting that tax doesn't impact your economy indirectly. And the likes of Norway and Sweden have significantly higher taxation levels on individuals like you and me rather than corporations. So yeah, increasing tax levels on individuals. I agree :D

mcteeth
Ageing international
Posts: 3351
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:44 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mcteeth » Fri Jul 15, 2016 1:33 pm

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.
I think you're wrong.

The way forward is integration and taking a care pathway approach, that way we'll develop more effective and efficient models of care. You only have to look at the transforming care program for people with learning disabilities getting them out of hospital settings and back into community settings. It's cheaper, better for the person and means hospital resource can be put to better use elsewhere.

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.

Hunt is a moron, it is obvious to anyone with half a brain that so many of the pressures faced by acute hospitals are to do with our growing elderly population who are multi morbid. As well as ineffective primary care, GPs retiring and not enough coming through the system. And the quiet epidemic of rising mental health problems. All the while Jeremy has only one concern pressuring acute NHS trusts to the point of failure to then privatise as Gibbon states. If adult social care was funded properly and better integrated with the NHS a lot of problems and pressures would ease considerably.

The cuts in funding to mental health and adult social care are on the point of crisis, ultimately that problems sits with the treasury and the blind alley we're now trapped in but you need a health secretary that actually understands the system and wants better outcomes for people. That isn't Hunt.

Post Reply