FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Broken nhs
Broken nhs
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Can Labour fix it? If you can afford private, go private! I cannot and it never ceases to fail me." 37% uk overweight Third children overweight 6 million smokers 3+ million on drugs Tens of billions of pounds annually spent on this Public need to take their own responsibility first | |||
| |||
| |||
"Nobody wants to fix it. It was Labour that started off privatisation by bringing in Sodexo to run ancillary services. That's not even counting old hospitals knocked down and moved to New sites which are rented from private owners." Labour committed £80bn of taxpayers money via PFI to deliver £13bn investment to the NHS. And people complain about the tories. | |||
| |||
| |||
"The mess we’ve got now is what happens when you run a health system as some kind of weird ideological cult." The business model doesn't work as a Trust, however business models do infiltrate aspects of it (but not in terms of profit). IT is a big issue - incompatible systems preventing communication between community and acute care, for instance.why was funding given to Hester for primary care IT systems, and not those used in hospitals? Surely not nepotism?  | |||
"The mess we’ve got now is what happens when you run a health system as some kind of weird ideological cult." Genuinely interested in hearing your solutions for a healthcare service for the UK. | |||
"The mess we’ve got now is what happens when you run a health system as some kind of weird ideological cult." The NHS in England directly employs 1.7 million people (equivalent to 1.5 million full-time staff) For comparison the Armed services employs 143.000 Nhs employee costs account for around two-thirds of NHS providers' expenditure. The NHS is the country's biggest employer and one of the largest employers globally by headcount. Where do you start with such an enormous organisation. Mental health alone has increased by 40% | |||
"Can Labour fix it? If you can afford private, go private! I cannot and it never ceases to fail me." I have private care now though it was via my employer. Thankfully not needed it so far. The downside so far is that despite this in theory being a help to the NHS, I get taxed slightly more via my tax code. | |||
"Can Labour fix it? If you can afford private, go private! I cannot and it never ceases to fail me." To get it to European levels it will likely need its own tax in addition to the ones we already pay and that includes most workers plus pensioners chipping in hence no it’s not going to fixed but it might get a few pot holes filled in. | |||
"The mess we’ve got now is what happens when you run a health system as some kind of weird ideological cult. The business model doesn't work as a Trust, however business models do infiltrate aspects of it (but not in terms of profit). IT is a big issue - incompatible systems preventing communication between community and acute care, for instance.why was funding given to Hester for primary care IT systems, and not those used in hospitals? Surely not nepotism? "The question I can't get my head around is why the IT system is so bad. It is not linked up, some departments at our local hospital send appointments on the NHS app, others can't as they "aren't connected" and send letters in the post. Same hospital, departments are actually adjacent to each other in the building. There is no proper connection between the hospital and the GP. No connection at all between pharmacies and the main records - our daughter had some travel vaccinations at the GP and they appeared on the app. For some unknown reason the GP wouldn't do all of them (even if we paid) so the rest were done at a pharmacy. None of those are on the NHS app. As someone who works with computers every day, I understand they only deal with data and it is relatively easy to translate data from one format to another. So it can't be lack of investment, it must be total incompetence. | |||
| |||
"The mess we’ve got now is what happens when you run a health system as some kind of weird ideological cult. The business model doesn't work as a Trust, however business models do infiltrate aspects of it (but not in terms of profit). IT is a big issue - incompatible systems preventing communication between community and acute care, for instance.why was funding given to Hester for primary care IT systems, and not those used in hospitals? Surely not nepotism?
The question I can't get my head around is why the IT system is so bad.
It is not linked up, some departments at our local hospital send appointments on the NHS app, others can't as they "aren't connected" and send letters in the post. Same hospital, departments are actually adjacent to each other in the building.
There is no proper connection between the hospital and the GP.
No connection at all between pharmacies and the main records - our daughter had some travel vaccinations at the GP and they appeared on the app. For some unknown reason the GP wouldn't do all of them (even if we paid) so the rest were done at a pharmacy. None of those are on the NHS app.
As someone who works with computers every day, I understand they only deal with data and it is relatively easy to translate data from one format to another. So it can't be lack of investment, it must be total incompetence."Probably a data protection thing. The NHS can't share your data with private businesses without consent. | |||
"The mess we’ve got now is what happens when you run a health system as some kind of weird ideological cult. The business model doesn't work as a Trust, however business models do infiltrate aspects of it (but not in terms of profit). IT is a big issue - incompatible systems preventing communication between community and acute care, for instance.why was funding given to Hester for primary care IT systems, and not those used in hospitals? Surely not nepotism?
The question I can't get my head around is why the IT system is so bad.
It is not linked up, some departments at our local hospital send appointments on the NHS app, others can't as they "aren't connected" and send letters in the post. Same hospital, departments are actually adjacent to each other in the building.
There is no proper connection between the hospital and the GP.
No connection at all between pharmacies and the main records - our daughter had some travel vaccinations at the GP and they appeared on the app. For some unknown reason the GP wouldn't do all of them (even if we paid) so the rest were done at a pharmacy. None of those are on the NHS app.
As someone who works with computers every day, I understand they only deal with data and it is relatively easy to translate data from one format to another. So it can't be lack of investment, it must be total incompetence.
Probably a data protection thing. The NHS can't share your data with private businesses without consent."Doesn't explain why different parts of the NHS aren't linked. Pharmacy maybe, but they should be able to upload data. | |||
"The mess we’ve got now is what happens when you run a health system as some kind of weird ideological cult. The business model doesn't work as a Trust, however business models do infiltrate aspects of it (but not in terms of profit). IT is a big issue - incompatible systems preventing communication between community and acute care, for instance.why was funding given to Hester for primary care IT systems, and not those used in hospitals? Surely not nepotism?
The question I can't get my head around is why the IT system is so bad.
It is not linked up, some departments at our local hospital send appointments on the NHS app, others can't as they "aren't connected" and send letters in the post. Same hospital, departments are actually adjacent to each other in the building.
There is no proper connection between the hospital and the GP.
No connection at all between pharmacies and the main records - our daughter had some travel vaccinations at the GP and they appeared on the app. For some unknown reason the GP wouldn't do all of them (even if we paid) so the rest were done at a pharmacy. None of those are on the NHS app.
As someone who works with computers every day, I understand they only deal with data and it is relatively easy to translate data from one format to another. So it can't be lack of investment, it must be total incompetence.
Probably a data protection thing. The NHS can't share your data with private businesses without consent.
Doesn't explain why different parts of the NHS aren't linked.
Pharmacy maybe, but they should be able to upload data."The lack of integration is, in part, down to the NHS not being a single organisation. For decades now it has been a fragmented set of separate organisations, some public sector and some private sector, all operating under a brand. Each of these organisations will have their own systems and linking them is probably really difficult due to a lack of interoperability. | |||
"The mess we’ve got now is what happens when you run a health system as some kind of weird ideological cult. The business model doesn't work as a Trust, however business models do infiltrate aspects of it (but not in terms of profit). IT is a big issue - incompatible systems preventing communication between community and acute care, for instance.why was funding given to Hester for primary care IT systems, and not those used in hospitals? Surely not nepotism?
The question I can't get my head around is why the IT system is so bad.
It is not linked up, some departments at our local hospital send appointments on the NHS app, others can't as they "aren't connected" and send letters in the post. Same hospital, departments are actually adjacent to each other in the building.
There is no proper connection between the hospital and the GP.
No connection at all between pharmacies and the main records - our daughter had some travel vaccinations at the GP and they appeared on the app. For some unknown reason the GP wouldn't do all of them (even if we paid) so the rest were done at a pharmacy. None of those are on the NHS app.
As someone who works with computers every day, I understand they only deal with data and it is relatively easy to translate data from one format to another. So it can't be lack of investment, it must be total incompetence.
Probably a data protection thing. The NHS can't share your data with private businesses without consent.
Doesn't explain why different parts of the NHS aren't linked.
Pharmacy maybe, but they should be able to upload data.
The lack of integration is, in part, down to the NHS not being a single organisation. For decades now it has been a fragmented set of separate organisations, some public sector and some private sector, all operating under a brand. Each of these organisations will have their own systems and linking them is probably really difficult due to a lack of interoperability. "As I said, incompetence. Incompetence to have fragmentation. Incompetence to not have one central purchasing and IT department, employing experts. Incompetence in procuring systems without insisting on interoperability and open standards. Incompetence in using proprietary systems. Incompetence in not sorting it out, any systems can be made to talk to each other or at least the data can be put on a new system and translated. | |||
| |||
"The mess we’ve got now is what happens when you run a health system as some kind of weird ideological cult. The business model doesn't work as a Trust, however business models do infiltrate aspects of it (but not in terms of profit). IT is a big issue - incompatible systems preventing communication between community and acute care, for instance.why was funding given to Hester for primary care IT systems, and not those used in hospitals? Surely not nepotism?
The question I can't get my head around is why the IT system is so bad.
It is not linked up, some departments at our local hospital send appointments on the NHS app, others can't as they "aren't connected" and send letters in the post. Same hospital, departments are actually adjacent to each other in the building.
There is no proper connection between the hospital and the GP.
No connection at all between pharmacies and the main records - our daughter had some travel vaccinations at the GP and they appeared on the app. For some unknown reason the GP wouldn't do all of them (even if we paid) so the rest were done at a pharmacy. None of those are on the NHS app.
As someone who works with computers every day, I understand they only deal with data and it is relatively easy to translate data from one format to another. So it can't be lack of investment, it must be total incompetence.
Probably a data protection thing. The NHS can't share your data with private businesses without consent.
Doesn't explain why different parts of the NHS aren't linked.
Pharmacy maybe, but they should be able to upload data.
The lack of integration is, in part, down to the NHS not being a single organisation. For decades now it has been a fragmented set of separate organisations, some public sector and some private sector, all operating under a brand. Each of these organisations will have their own systems and linking them is probably really difficult due to a lack of interoperability.
As I said, incompetence.
Incompetence to have fragmentation.
Incompetence to not have one central purchasing and IT department, employing experts.
Incompetence in procuring systems without insisting on interoperability and open standards.
Incompetence in using proprietary systems.
Incompetence in not sorting it out, any systems can be made to talk to each other or at least the data can be put on a new system and translated."Agreed although much blame sites with Govt (blue and red) and DHSC (and predecessors) for tinkering. I believe many of the systems are decades old and held together with plasters, built in a time before open standards were a thing. Also, once you introduce increasing numbers of third party suppliers (private sector in this case) it is often in their interests to perpetuate the disorganised status quo to maintain revenue streams (ie why solve the problem a stop the money coming in!) | |||
"The mess we’ve got now is what happens when you run a health system as some kind of weird ideological cult. The business model doesn't work as a Trust, however business models do infiltrate aspects of it (but not in terms of profit). IT is a big issue - incompatible systems preventing communication between community and acute care, for instance.why was funding given to Hester for primary care IT systems, and not those used in hospitals? Surely not nepotism?
The question I can't get my head around is why the IT system is so bad.
It is not linked up, some departments at our local hospital send appointments on the NHS app, others can't as they "aren't connected" and send letters in the post. Same hospital, departments are actually adjacent to each other in the building.
There is no proper connection between the hospital and the GP.
No connection at all between pharmacies and the main records - our daughter had some travel vaccinations at the GP and they appeared on the app. For some unknown reason the GP wouldn't do all of them (even if we paid) so the rest were done at a pharmacy. None of those are on the NHS app.
As someone who works with computers every day, I understand they only deal with data and it is relatively easy to translate data from one format to another. So it can't be lack of investment, it must be total incompetence.
Probably a data protection thing. The NHS can't share your data with private businesses without consent.
Doesn't explain why different parts of the NHS aren't linked.
Pharmacy maybe, but they should be able to upload data.
The lack of integration is, in part, down to the NHS not being a single organisation. For decades now it has been a fragmented set of separate organisations, some public sector and some private sector, all operating under a brand. Each of these organisations will have their own systems and linking them is probably really difficult due to a lack of interoperability.
As I said, incompetence.
Incompetence to have fragmentation.
Incompetence to not have one central purchasing and IT department, employing experts.
Incompetence in procuring systems without insisting on interoperability and open standards.
Incompetence in using proprietary systems.
Incompetence in not sorting it out, any systems can be made to talk to each other or at least the data can be put on a new system and translated.
Agreed although much blame sites with Govt (blue and red) and DHSC (and predecessors) for tinkering. I believe many of the systems are decades old and held together with plasters, built in a time before open standards were a thing.
Also, once you introduce increasing numbers of third party suppliers (private sector in this case) it is often in their interests to perpetuate the disorganised status quo to maintain revenue streams (ie why solve the problem a stop the money coming in!) "Fully agree where the blame lies. Also agree regarding third party suppliers. The NHS is one of the biggest employers in the world and if it had a coherent centralised strategy could exert sufficient pressure on suppliers to get them to do what is needed, not what is good for the supplier. It is madness that it is so fragmented, and that the expertise is not in house. | |||
"The mess we’ve got now is what happens when you run a health system as some kind of weird ideological cult. The business model doesn't work as a Trust, however business models do infiltrate aspects of it (but not in terms of profit). IT is a big issue - incompatible systems preventing communication between community and acute care, for instance.why was funding given to Hester for primary care IT systems, and not those used in hospitals? Surely not nepotism?
The question I can't get my head around is why the IT system is so bad.
It is not linked up, some departments at our local hospital send appointments on the NHS app, others can't as they "aren't connected" and send letters in the post. Same hospital, departments are actually adjacent to each other in the building.
There is no proper connection between the hospital and the GP.
No connection at all between pharmacies and the main records - our daughter had some travel vaccinations at the GP and they appeared on the app. For some unknown reason the GP wouldn't do all of them (even if we paid) so the rest were done at a pharmacy. None of those are on the NHS app.
As someone who works with computers every day, I understand they only deal with data and it is relatively easy to translate data from one format to another. So it can't be lack of investment, it must be total incompetence.
Probably a data protection thing. The NHS can't share your data with private businesses without consent.
Doesn't explain why different parts of the NHS aren't linked.
Pharmacy maybe, but they should be able to upload data.
The lack of integration is, in part, down to the NHS not being a single organisation. For decades now it has been a fragmented set of separate organisations, some public sector and some private sector, all operating under a brand. Each of these organisations will have their own systems and linking them is probably really difficult due to a lack of interoperability.
As I said, incompetence.
Incompetence to have fragmentation.
Incompetence to not have one central purchasing and IT department, employing experts.
Incompetence in procuring systems without insisting on interoperability and open standards.
Incompetence in using proprietary systems.
Incompetence in not sorting it out, any systems can be made to talk to each other or at least the data can be put on a new system and translated."Each Trust has its own budget, and there are systems out there that can hold all patient data, from pharmacy to labs to theatres and including some gp surgeries. The cost of linking everything up is massive. A PAS system alone with cost in the region £5m + let alone linking this to the other departments and to GP's It's not just the systems it's staffing. All are under paid and under staffed. Doctors will train here because we have some of the best University training hospitals and a few pioneering hospitals in the world. But they leave cause they can get paid better/less hours in other countries (eg Australia). | |||
 | |||
"The mess we’ve got now is what happens when you run a health system as some kind of weird ideological cult. The business model doesn't work as a Trust, however business models do infiltrate aspects of it (but not in terms of profit). IT is a big issue - incompatible systems preventing communication between community and acute care, for instance.why was funding given to Hester for primary care IT systems, and not those used in hospitals? Surely not nepotism?
The question I can't get my head around is why the IT system is so bad.
It is not linked up, some departments at our local hospital send appointments on the NHS app, others can't as they "aren't connected" and send letters in the post. Same hospital, departments are actually adjacent to each other in the building.
There is no proper connection between the hospital and the GP.
No connection at all between pharmacies and the main records - our daughter had some travel vaccinations at the GP and they appeared on the app. For some unknown reason the GP wouldn't do all of them (even if we paid) so the rest were done at a pharmacy. None of those are on the NHS app.
As someone who works with computers every day, I understand they only deal with data and it is relatively easy to translate data from one format to another. So it can't be lack of investment, it must be total incompetence."You do raise some very pertinent and astute observations. I was going to reply privately, alas I am blocked. Sorry ! . You are partially correct, but only up to a point. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Can Labour fix it? If you can afford private, go private! I cannot and it never ceases to fail me." No. They can't and won't. If I need essential surgery for any members of my family, I will go private. And have done quite a few times already. Never had a problem with the NHS - except waiting. While people are waiting, people are dying. We will all be here in 1. 2. 3. 4. years time saying WTF have Labour done to reduce waiting times. | |||
"It can be fixed, what is required is the will. There are people who are ideologically opposed to the idea of doing things for the collective good who will argue that we can’t afford it but these are people who cannot think holistically, and look at the benefits a healthy workforce has for the economy. In reality we can’t afford not to have the NHS, we spend less money on health as a nation, per capita, than pretty much all the nations we would compare ourselves to, and less than half what is spent in the US. Whatever you try to replace the NHS with it will cost more." . You are spot on. We do need to have a grown-up conversation in the UK about how to shape the NHS for the future. . A politician with the will and conviction needs to say to the electorate, "The NHS needs to rebuilt from the ground up, much like its initial inception. It was fit for purpose in its day, but there comes a point where sticking plasters to try and fix systemic issues no longer works. We are offering the public a referendum (uh oh) on whether they wish to move to a Scandanavian model, a German model, or a US model. Here are the pros and cons of each. Now vote." Personally, I'm happy to pay more tax for a Scandanavian model. Helps me, and helps others too | |||
"It can be fixed, what is required is the will. There are people who are ideologically opposed to the idea of doing things for the collective good who will argue that we can’t afford it but these are people who cannot think holistically, and look at the benefits a healthy workforce has for the economy. In reality we can’t afford not to have the NHS, we spend less money on health as a nation, per capita, than pretty much all the nations we would compare ourselves to, and less than half what is spent in the US. Whatever you try to replace the NHS with it will cost more.. You are spot on. We do need to have a grown-up conversation in the UK about how to shape the NHS for the future. . A politician with the will and conviction needs to say to the electorate, "The NHS needs to rebuilt from the ground up, much like its initial inception. It was fit for purpose in its day, but there comes a point where sticking plasters to try and fix systemic issues no longer works. We are offering the public a referendum (uh oh) on whether they wish to move to a Scandanavian model, a German model, or a US model. Here are the pros and cons of each. Now vote." Personally, I'm happy to pay more tax for a Scandanavian model. Helps me, and helps others too "Despite taxes being high, I think a large proportion of the population would be willing to pay a little more, to invest in the NHS. | |||
"It can be fixed, what is required is the will. There are people who are ideologically opposed to the idea of doing things for the collective good who will argue that we can’t afford it but these are people who cannot think holistically, and look at the benefits a healthy workforce has for the economy. In reality we can’t afford not to have the NHS, we spend less money on health as a nation, per capita, than pretty much all the nations we would compare ourselves to, and less than half what is spent in the US. Whatever you try to replace the NHS with it will cost more.. You are spot on. We do need to have a grown-up conversation in the UK about how to shape the NHS for the future. . A politician with the will and conviction needs to say to the electorate, "The NHS needs to rebuilt from the ground up, much like its initial inception. It was fit for purpose in its day, but there comes a point where sticking plasters to try and fix systemic issues no longer works. We are offering the public a referendum (uh oh) on whether they wish to move to a Scandanavian model, a German model, or a US model. Here are the pros and cons of each. Now vote." Personally, I'm happy to pay more tax for a Scandanavian model. Helps me, and helps others too
Despite taxes being high, I think a large proportion of the population would be willing to pay a little more, to invest in the NHS. "Only on the promise of a legal contract to completely strip it and rebuild. If it was just to continue the way it has done, they can get fucked if they think they're getting more money from me. | |||
"It can be fixed, what is required is the will. There are people who are ideologically opposed to the idea of doing things for the collective good who will argue that we can’t afford it but these are people who cannot think holistically, and look at the benefits a healthy workforce has for the economy. In reality we can’t afford not to have the NHS, we spend less money on health as a nation, per capita, than pretty much all the nations we would compare ourselves to, and less than half what is spent in the US. Whatever you try to replace the NHS with it will cost more.. You are spot on. We do need to have a grown-up conversation in the UK about how to shape the NHS for the future. . A politician with the will and conviction needs to say to the electorate, "The NHS needs to rebuilt from the ground up, much like its initial inception. It was fit for purpose in its day, but there comes a point where sticking plasters to try and fix systemic issues no longer works. We are offering the public a referendum (uh oh) on whether they wish to move to a Scandanavian model, a German model, or a US model. Here are the pros and cons of each. Now vote." Personally, I'm happy to pay more tax for a Scandanavian model. Helps me, and helps others too
Despite taxes being high, I think a large proportion of the population would be willing to pay a little more, to invest in the NHS.
Only on the promise of a legal contract to completely strip it and rebuild. If it was just to continue the way it has done, they can get fucked if they think they're getting more money from me. "You think you have a say in how the nhs is funded and run? | |||
"It can be fixed, what is required is the will. There are people who are ideologically opposed to the idea of doing things for the collective good who will argue that we can’t afford it but these are people who cannot think holistically, and look at the benefits a healthy workforce has for the economy. In reality we can’t afford not to have the NHS, we spend less money on health as a nation, per capita, than pretty much all the nations we would compare ourselves to, and less than half what is spent in the US. Whatever you try to replace the NHS with it will cost more.. You are spot on. We do need to have a grown-up conversation in the UK about how to shape the NHS for the future. . A politician with the will and conviction needs to say to the electorate, "The NHS needs to rebuilt from the ground up, much like its initial inception. It was fit for purpose in its day, but there comes a point where sticking plasters to try and fix systemic issues no longer works. We are offering the public a referendum (uh oh) on whether they wish to move to a Scandanavian model, a German model, or a US model. Here are the pros and cons of each. Now vote." Personally, I'm happy to pay more tax for a Scandanavian model. Helps me, and helps others too
Despite taxes being high, I think a large proportion of the population would be willing to pay a little more, to invest in the NHS.
Only on the promise of a legal contract to completely strip it and rebuild. If it was just to continue the way it has done, they can get fucked if they think they're getting more money from me.
You think you have a say in how the nhs is funded and run?"You have to love the naivety of the libertarian. | |||
"It can be fixed, what is required is the will. There are people who are ideologically opposed to the idea of doing things for the collective good who will argue that we can’t afford it but these are people who cannot think holistically, and look at the benefits a healthy workforce has for the economy. In reality we can’t afford not to have the NHS, we spend less money on health as a nation, per capita, than pretty much all the nations we would compare ourselves to, and less than half what is spent in the US. Whatever you try to replace the NHS with it will cost more.. You are spot on. We do need to have a grown-up conversation in the UK about how to shape the NHS for the future. . A politician with the will and conviction needs to say to the electorate, "The NHS needs to rebuilt from the ground up, much like its initial inception. It was fit for purpose in its day, but there comes a point where sticking plasters to try and fix systemic issues no longer works. We are offering the public a referendum (uh oh) on whether they wish to move to a Scandanavian model, a German model, or a US model. Here are the pros and cons of each. Now vote." Personally, I'm happy to pay more tax for a Scandanavian model. Helps me, and helps others too
Despite taxes being high, I think a large proportion of the population would be willing to pay a little more, to invest in the NHS.
Only on the promise of a legal contract to completely strip it and rebuild. If it was just to continue the way it has done, they can get fucked if they think they're getting more money from me.
You think you have a say in how the nhs is funded and run?"You may have missed the part where the poster states 'a large proportion would be willing'. I am entitled to respond to that aren't I? | |||
"It can be fixed, what is required is the will. There are people who are ideologically opposed to the idea of doing things for the collective good who will argue that we can’t afford it but these are people who cannot think holistically, and look at the benefits a healthy workforce has for the economy. In reality we can’t afford not to have the NHS, we spend less money on health as a nation, per capita, than pretty much all the nations we would compare ourselves to, and less than half what is spent in the US. Whatever you try to replace the NHS with it will cost more.. You are spot on. We do need to have a grown-up conversation in the UK about how to shape the NHS for the future. . A politician with the will and conviction needs to say to the electorate, "The NHS needs to rebuilt from the ground up, much like its initial inception. It was fit for purpose in its day, but there comes a point where sticking plasters to try and fix systemic issues no longer works. We are offering the public a referendum (uh oh) on whether they wish to move to a Scandanavian model, a German model, or a US model. Here are the pros and cons of each. Now vote." Personally, I'm happy to pay more tax for a Scandanavian model. Helps me, and helps others too
Despite taxes being high, I think a large proportion of the population would be willing to pay a little more, to invest in the NHS.
Only on the promise of a legal contract to completely strip it and rebuild. If it was just to continue the way it has done, they can get fucked if they think they're getting more money from me.
You think you have a say in how the nhs is funded and run?
You have to love the naivety of the libertarian."Who's the libertarian? | |||
"It can be fixed, what is required is the will. There are people who are ideologically opposed to the idea of doing things for the collective good who will argue that we can’t afford it but these are people who cannot think holistically, and look at the benefits a healthy workforce has for the economy. In reality we can’t afford not to have the NHS, we spend less money on health as a nation, per capita, than pretty much all the nations we would compare ourselves to, and less than half what is spent in the US. Whatever you try to replace the NHS with it will cost more.. You are spot on. We do need to have a grown-up conversation in the UK about how to shape the NHS for the future. . A politician with the will and conviction needs to say to the electorate, "The NHS needs to rebuilt from the ground up, much like its initial inception. It was fit for purpose in its day, but there comes a point where sticking plasters to try and fix systemic issues no longer works. We are offering the public a referendum (uh oh) on whether they wish to move to a Scandanavian model, a German model, or a US model. Here are the pros and cons of each. Now vote." Personally, I'm happy to pay more tax for a Scandanavian model. Helps me, and helps others too
Despite taxes being high, I think a large proportion of the population would be willing to pay a little more, to invest in the NHS.
Only on the promise of a legal contract to completely strip it and rebuild. If it was just to continue the way it has done, they can get fucked if they think they're getting more money from me.
You think you have a say in how the nhs is funded and run?
You may have missed the part where the poster states 'a large proportion would be willing'.
I am entitled to respond to that aren't I?"Then you'd respond that you wouldn't be willing (cos my point still stands to your original sentence). | |||
"It can be fixed, what is required is the will. There are people who are ideologically opposed to the idea of doing things for the collective good who will argue that we can’t afford it but these are people who cannot think holistically, and look at the benefits a healthy workforce has for the economy. In reality we can’t afford not to have the NHS, we spend less money on health as a nation, per capita, than pretty much all the nations we would compare ourselves to, and less than half what is spent in the US. Whatever you try to replace the NHS with it will cost more.. You are spot on. We do need to have a grown-up conversation in the UK about how to shape the NHS for the future. . A politician with the will and conviction needs to say to the electorate, "The NHS needs to rebuilt from the ground up, much like its initial inception. It was fit for purpose in its day, but there comes a point where sticking plasters to try and fix systemic issues no longer works. We are offering the public a referendum (uh oh) on whether they wish to move to a Scandanavian model, a German model, or a US model. Here are the pros and cons of each. Now vote." Personally, I'm happy to pay more tax for a Scandanavian model. Helps me, and helps others too
Despite taxes being high, I think a large proportion of the population would be willing to pay a little more, to invest in the NHS.
Only on the promise of a legal contract to completely strip it and rebuild. If it was just to continue the way it has done, they can get fucked if they think they're getting more money from me.
You think you have a say in how the nhs is funded and run?
You may have missed the part where the poster states 'a large proportion would be willing'.
I am entitled to respond to that aren't I?
Then you'd respond that you wouldn't be willing (cos my point still stands to your original sentence)."I wouldn't be willing to chuck more money into a system which is fucked, no. Do I think I have a say? Obviously not, I do have ways of paying less tax though  | |||
"It can be fixed, what is required is the will. There are people who are ideologically opposed to the idea of doing things for the collective good who will argue that we can’t afford it but these are people who cannot think holistically, and look at the benefits a healthy workforce has for the economy. In reality we can’t afford not to have the NHS, we spend less money on health as a nation, per capita, than pretty much all the nations we would compare ourselves to, and less than half what is spent in the US. Whatever you try to replace the NHS with it will cost more.. You are spot on. We do need to have a grown-up conversation in the UK about how to shape the NHS for the future. . A politician with the will and conviction needs to say to the electorate, "The NHS needs to rebuilt from the ground up, much like its initial inception. It was fit for purpose in its day, but there comes a point where sticking plasters to try and fix systemic issues no longer works. We are offering the public a referendum (uh oh) on whether they wish to move to a Scandanavian model, a German model, or a US model. Here are the pros and cons of each. Now vote." Personally, I'm happy to pay more tax for a Scandanavian model. Helps me, and helps others too
Despite taxes being high, I think a large proportion of the population would be willing to pay a little more, to invest in the NHS.
Only on the promise of a legal contract to completely strip it and rebuild. If it was just to continue the way it has done, they can get fucked if they think they're getting more money from me.
You think you have a say in how the nhs is funded and run?
You may have missed the part where the poster states 'a large proportion would be willing'.
I am entitled to respond to that aren't I?
Then you'd respond that you wouldn't be willing (cos my point still stands to your original sentence).
I wouldn't be willing to chuck more money into a system which is fucked, no.
Do I think I have a say? Obviously not, I do have ways of paying less tax though "I'm guessing you are self employed. | |||
"It can be fixed, what is required is the will. There are people who are ideologically opposed to the idea of doing things for the collective good who will argue that we can’t afford it but these are people who cannot think holistically, and look at the benefits a healthy workforce has for the economy. In reality we can’t afford not to have the NHS, we spend less money on health as a nation, per capita, than pretty much all the nations we would compare ourselves to, and less than half what is spent in the US. Whatever you try to replace the NHS with it will cost more.. You are spot on. We do need to have a grown-up conversation in the UK about how to shape the NHS for the future. . A politician with the will and conviction needs to say to the electorate, "The NHS needs to rebuilt from the ground up, much like its initial inception. It was fit for purpose in its day, but there comes a point where sticking plasters to try and fix systemic issues no longer works. We are offering the public a referendum (uh oh) on whether they wish to move to a Scandanavian model, a German model, or a US model. Here are the pros and cons of each. Now vote." Personally, I'm happy to pay more tax for a Scandanavian model. Helps me, and helps others too
Despite taxes being high, I think a large proportion of the population would be willing to pay a little more, to invest in the NHS.
Only on the promise of a legal contract to completely strip it and rebuild. If it was just to continue the way it has done, they can get fucked if they think they're getting more money from me.
You think you have a say in how the nhs is funded and run?
You may have missed the part where the poster states 'a large proportion would be willing'.
I am entitled to respond to that aren't I?
Then you'd respond that you wouldn't be willing (cos my point still stands to your original sentence).
I wouldn't be willing to chuck more money into a system which is fucked, no.
Do I think I have a say? Obviously not, I do have ways of paying less tax though
I'm guessing you are self employed."I am | |||
"It can be fixed, what is required is the will. There are people who are ideologically opposed to the idea of doing things for the collective good who will argue that we can’t afford it but these are people who cannot think holistically, and look at the benefits a healthy workforce has for the economy. In reality we can’t afford not to have the NHS, we spend less money on health as a nation, per capita, than pretty much all the nations we would compare ourselves to, and less than half what is spent in the US. Whatever you try to replace the NHS with it will cost more.. You are spot on. We do need to have a grown-up conversation in the UK about how to shape the NHS for the future. . A politician with the will and conviction needs to say to the electorate, "The NHS needs to rebuilt from the ground up, much like its initial inception. It was fit for purpose in its day, but there comes a point where sticking plasters to try and fix systemic issues no longer works. We are offering the public a referendum (uh oh) on whether they wish to move to a Scandanavian model, a German model, or a US model. Here are the pros and cons of each. Now vote." Personally, I'm happy to pay more tax for a Scandanavian model. Helps me, and helps others too
Despite taxes being high, I think a large proportion of the population would be willing to pay a little more, to invest in the NHS. "really? Moost people i know pay as little tax as they can legally get away with paying, i know no one who wants to pay more tax whatever its for, perhaps if we stopped chucking money at ukraine we could use some of that instead | |||
"It can be fixed, what is required is the will. There are people who are ideologically opposed to the idea of doing things for the collective good who will argue that we can’t afford it but these are people who cannot think holistically, and look at the benefits a healthy workforce has for the economy. In reality we can’t afford not to have the NHS, we spend less money on health as a nation, per capita, than pretty much all the nations we would compare ourselves to, and less than half what is spent in the US. Whatever you try to replace the NHS with it will cost more.. You are spot on. We do need to have a grown-up conversation in the UK about how to shape the NHS for the future. . A politician with the will and conviction needs to say to the electorate, "The NHS needs to rebuilt from the ground up, much like its initial inception. It was fit for purpose in its day, but there comes a point where sticking plasters to try and fix systemic issues no longer works. We are offering the public a referendum (uh oh) on whether they wish to move to a Scandanavian model, a German model, or a US model. Here are the pros and cons of each. Now vote." Personally, I'm happy to pay more tax for a Scandanavian model. Helps me, and helps others too
Despite taxes being high, I think a large proportion of the population would be willing to pay a little more, to invest in the NHS. really? Moost people i know pay as little tax as they can legally get away with paying, i know no one who wants to pay more tax whatever its for, perhaps if we stopped chucking money at ukraine we could use some of that instead"If we could turn back time (ooh Cher vibes) we might be able to stop the huge wastage and transfer of public funds to Tory chums. Pretty sure that money would be handy now too! | |||
"Can Labour fix it? If you can afford private, go private! I cannot and it never ceases to fail me." I think the question is more one of “Have Labour got the will to fix it, or are they ideologically wedded to a system and a model that is not fit for purpose”? If I could afford to go private I would, but I can’t because I’m taxed so damn much for a system abused by many (missed appointments, “frequent flyers” tying up the ambulance network) maligned by all and ideologically unquestionable. I don’t see why I should have to pay for other people’s healthcare to the extent that I do. Frankly YOU (genrically) are not MY financial responsibility. | |||
"Can Labour fix it? If you can afford private, go private! I cannot and it never ceases to fail me. I think the question is more one of “Have Labour got the will to fix it, or are they ideologically wedded to a system and a model that is not fit for purpose”? If I could afford to go private I would, but I can’t because I’m taxed so damn much for a system abused by many (missed appointments, “frequent flyers” tying up the ambulance network) maligned by all and ideologically unquestionable. I don’t see why I should have to pay for other people’s healthcare to the extent that I do. Frankly YOU (genrically) are not MY financial responsibility. " Where is the logical end point of that thinking? For example, someone who does not drive no longer contributing tax to roads, no kids so nothing to education budget, not in receipt of any kind of benefit so none of my taxes going to that please etc etc | |||
"Can Labour fix it? If you can afford private, go private! I cannot and it never ceases to fail me. I think the question is more one of “Have Labour got the will to fix it, or are they ideologically wedded to a system and a model that is not fit for purpose”? If I could afford to go private I would, but I can’t because I’m taxed so damn much for a system abused by many (missed appointments, “frequent flyers” tying up the ambulance network) maligned by all and ideologically unquestionable. I don’t see why I should have to pay for other people’s healthcare to the extent that I do. Frankly YOU (genrically) are not MY financial responsibility. " Don't ever have a stroke or heart attack will you! You're definitely approaching the age of the latter. | |||
"Can Labour fix it? If you can afford private, go private! I cannot and it never ceases to fail me. I think the question is more one of “Have Labour got the will to fix it, or are they ideologically wedded to a system and a model that is not fit for purpose”? If I could afford to go private I would, but I can’t because I’m taxed so damn much for a system abused by many (missed appointments, “frequent flyers” tying up the ambulance network) maligned by all and ideologically unquestionable. I don’t see why I should have to pay for other people’s healthcare to the extent that I do. Frankly YOU (genrically) are not MY financial responsibility. Where is the logical end point of that thinking? For example, someone who does not drive no longer contributing tax to roads, no kids so nothing to education budget, not in receipt of any kind of benefit so none of my taxes going to that please etc etc" I don’t use trains so none of my taxes on subsidies for rail companies please. I’m not old so I shouldn’t have to contribute to pensions, and I’ve never been the victim of crime so no funding the police for me. | |||
"Can Labour fix it? If you can afford private, go private! I cannot and it never ceases to fail me. I think the question is more one of “Have Labour got the will to fix it, or are they ideologically wedded to a system and a model that is not fit for purpose”? If I could afford to go private I would, but I can’t because I’m taxed so damn much for a system abused by many (missed appointments, “frequent flyers” tying up the ambulance network) maligned by all and ideologically unquestionable. I don’t see why I should have to pay for other people’s healthcare to the extent that I do. Frankly YOU (genrically) are not MY financial responsibility. Where is the logical end point of that thinking? For example, someone who does not drive no longer contributing tax to roads, no kids so nothing to education budget, not in receipt of any kind of benefit so none of my taxes going to that please etc etc" There is a libertarian answer to that. Toll roads that a private player or people in a locality build  | |||
"Can Labour fix it? If you can afford private, go private! I cannot and it never ceases to fail me. I think the question is more one of “Have Labour got the will to fix it, or are they ideologically wedded to a system and a model that is not fit for purpose”? If I could afford to go private I would, but I can’t because I’m taxed so damn much for a system abused by many (missed appointments, “frequent flyers” tying up the ambulance network) maligned by all and ideologically unquestionable. I don’t see why I should have to pay for other people’s healthcare to the extent that I do. Frankly YOU (genrically) are not MY financial responsibility. Where is the logical end point of that thinking? For example, someone who does not drive no longer contributing tax to roads, no kids so nothing to education budget, not in receipt of any kind of benefit so none of my taxes going to that please etc etc" The costs of the road network should come out of Road Fund Licence. As a driver I would pay more if my taxes were less and the roads were properly looked after. I’d put my kids through a private school if I didn’t have to pay that elemrent of taxation. The unemployed who don’t want a job, didn’t get a trade or qualifications, and who see life on the dole as a choice - it should be the end of the gravy train. Taxation should provide for: Defence of the realm; Policing and prisons; Caring only for the weakest in scoiety Essential national infrastructure How the rest is provided for, healthcare, pensions, the funding model for education etc should all be open for debate about how to provision it, not about whether the only way society is taxed out of any perosnal agency that removes personal choice and freedom. Like I said, others are not my problem adn I resent paying for them. | |||
"Can Labour fix it? If you can afford private, go private! I cannot and it never ceases to fail me. I think the question is more one of “Have Labour got the will to fix it, or are they ideologically wedded to a system and a model that is not fit for purpose”? If I could afford to go private I would, but I can’t because I’m taxed so damn much for a system abused by many (missed appointments, “frequent flyers” tying up the ambulance network) maligned by all and ideologically unquestionable. I don’t see why I should have to pay for other people’s healthcare to the extent that I do. Frankly YOU (genrically) are not MY financial responsibility. Where is the logical end point of that thinking? For example, someone who does not drive no longer contributing tax to roads, no kids so nothing to education budget, not in receipt of any kind of benefit so none of my taxes going to that please etc etc There is a libertarian answer to that. Toll roads that a private player or people in a locality build "Oh yeah we could privatise EVERYTHING and then all those people who can’t afford things can just whistle. Sounds like a great society that! | |||
"Can Labour fix it? If you can afford private, go private! I cannot and it never ceases to fail me. I think the question is more one of “Have Labour got the will to fix it, or are they ideologically wedded to a system and a model that is not fit for purpose”? If I could afford to go private I would, but I can’t because I’m taxed so damn much for a system abused by many (missed appointments, “frequent flyers” tying up the ambulance network) maligned by all and ideologically unquestionable. I don’t see why I should have to pay for other people’s healthcare to the extent that I do. Frankly YOU (genrically) are not MY financial responsibility. Where is the logical end point of that thinking? For example, someone who does not drive no longer contributing tax to roads, no kids so nothing to education budget, not in receipt of any kind of benefit so none of my taxes going to that please etc etc There is a libertarian answer to that. Toll roads that a private player or people in a locality build "The government interference that people are happy with is verging on communism and authoritarian when it comes to tax and providing for society. I guess that is the core to being left or right in political leanings. | |||
"Can Labour fix it? If you can afford private, go private! I cannot and it never ceases to fail me. I think the question is more one of “Have Labour got the will to fix it, or are they ideologically wedded to a system and a model that is not fit for purpose”? If I could afford to go private I would, but I can’t because I’m taxed so damn much for a system abused by many (missed appointments, “frequent flyers” tying up the ambulance network) maligned by all and ideologically unquestionable. I don’t see why I should have to pay for other people’s healthcare to the extent that I do. Frankly YOU (genrically) are not MY financial responsibility. Where is the logical end point of that thinking? For example, someone who does not drive no longer contributing tax to roads, no kids so nothing to education budget, not in receipt of any kind of benefit so none of my taxes going to that please etc etc The costs of the road network should come out of Road Fund Licence. As a driver I would pay more if my taxes were less and the roads were properly looked after. I’d put my kids through a private school if I didn’t have to pay that elemrent of taxation. The unemployed who don’t want a job, didn’t get a trade or qualifications, and who see life on the dole as a choice - it should be the end of the gravy train. Taxation should provide for: Defence of the realm; Policing and prisons; Caring only for the weakest in scoiety Essential national infrastructure How the rest is provided for, healthcare, pensions, the funding model for education etc should all be open for debate about how to provision it, not about whether the only way society is taxed out of any perosnal agency that removes personal choice and freedom. Like I said, others are not my problem adn I resent paying for them. " Wow just wow! So do you not consider the road network to be national infrastructure? Railways? Utilities? You really think private education equates to the same cost as tax contributions? Each child costs taxpayers £8k per year. How much do you need to earn to generate £8k in tax? So if you are on minimum wage your kid doesn’t go to school! Do you not think a well educated workforce is essential to growing the economy? The list is endless it really is. BTW can you resign from your senior NHS job ASAP please because I don’t want to pay your salary or pension. Thanks  | |||
"Can Labour fix it? If you can afford private, go private! I cannot and it never ceases to fail me. I think the question is more one of “Have Labour got the will to fix it, or are they ideologically wedded to a system and a model that is not fit for purpose”? If I could afford to go private I would, but I can’t because I’m taxed so damn much for a system abused by many (missed appointments, “frequent flyers” tying up the ambulance network) maligned by all and ideologically unquestionable. I don’t see why I should have to pay for other people’s healthcare to the extent that I do. Frankly YOU (genrically) are not MY financial responsibility. Where is the logical end point of that thinking? For example, someone who does not drive no longer contributing tax to roads, no kids so nothing to education budget, not in receipt of any kind of benefit so none of my taxes going to that please etc etc There is a libertarian answer to that. Toll roads that a private player or people in a locality build
The government interference that people are happy with is verging on communism and authoritarian when it comes to tax and providing for society.
I guess that is the core to being left or right in political leanings. "Alternatively you could say the core to being left or right in political leanings are that you either want to ensure people are looked after or you think looking after people is verging on communism. | |||
"Can Labour fix it? If you can afford private, go private! I cannot and it never ceases to fail me. I think the question is more one of “Have Labour got the will to fix it, or are they ideologically wedded to a system and a model that is not fit for purpose”? If I could afford to go private I would, but I can’t because I’m taxed so damn much for a system abused by many (missed appointments, “frequent flyers” tying up the ambulance network) maligned by all and ideologically unquestionable. I don’t see why I should have to pay for other people’s healthcare to the extent that I do. Frankly YOU (genrically) are not MY financial responsibility. Where is the logical end point of that thinking? For example, someone who does not drive no longer contributing tax to roads, no kids so nothing to education budget, not in receipt of any kind of benefit so none of my taxes going to that please etc etc There is a libertarian answer to that. Toll roads that a private player or people in a locality build
The government interference that people are happy with is verging on communism and authoritarian when it comes to tax and providing for society.
I guess that is the core to being left or right in political leanings. "Looking forward to all those toll booths on our country lanes and B roads. Fabulous! | |||
"Can Labour fix it? If you can afford private, go private! I cannot and it never ceases to fail me. I think the question is more one of “Have Labour got the will to fix it, or are they ideologically wedded to a system and a model that is not fit for purpose”? If I could afford to go private I would, but I can’t because I’m taxed so damn much for a system abused by many (missed appointments, “frequent flyers” tying up the ambulance network) maligned by all and ideologically unquestionable. I don’t see why I should have to pay for other people’s healthcare to the extent that I do. Frankly YOU (genrically) are not MY financial responsibility. Where is the logical end point of that thinking? For example, someone who does not drive no longer contributing tax to roads, no kids so nothing to education budget, not in receipt of any kind of benefit so none of my taxes going to that please etc etc There is a libertarian answer to that. Toll roads that a private player or people in a locality build
Oh yeah we could privatise EVERYTHING and then all those people who can’t afford things can just whistle. Sounds like a great society that! "I see your point. That's the reason why no country has a completely libertarian society. Then you run into the debate of what exactly is every person in the country entitled to. And no one can agree with each other on that which results in the government forcing people against their will to pay taxes for things they do not like to pay for. | |||
"Can Labour fix it? If you can afford private, go private! I cannot and it never ceases to fail me. I think the question is more one of “Have Labour got the will to fix it, or are they ideologically wedded to a system and a model that is not fit for purpose”? If I could afford to go private I would, but I can’t because I’m taxed so damn much for a system abused by many (missed appointments, “frequent flyers” tying up the ambulance network) maligned by all and ideologically unquestionable. I don’t see why I should have to pay for other people’s healthcare to the extent that I do. Frankly YOU (genrically) are not MY financial responsibility. Where is the logical end point of that thinking? For example, someone who does not drive no longer contributing tax to roads, no kids so nothing to education budget, not in receipt of any kind of benefit so none of my taxes going to that please etc etc There is a libertarian answer to that. Toll roads that a private player or people in a locality build
The government interference that people are happy with is verging on communism and authoritarian when it comes to tax and providing for society.
I guess that is the core to being left or right in political leanings. "The funny part is the governments have repeatedly shown they are so bad at solving people's problems. We also know why they can't solve the problems and will only make things worse. But for some reason, they still keep trying to add more and more responsibilities to the government. I think I know why they do that. But people don't like to hear it. | |||
"Can Labour fix it? If you can afford private, go private! I cannot and it never ceases to fail me. I think the question is more one of “Have Labour got the will to fix it, or are they ideologically wedded to a system and a model that is not fit for purpose”? If I could afford to go private I would, but I can’t because I’m taxed so damn much for a system abused by many (missed appointments, “frequent flyers” tying up the ambulance network) maligned by all and ideologically unquestionable. I don’t see why I should have to pay for other people’s healthcare to the extent that I do. Frankly YOU (genrically) are not MY financial responsibility. Where is the logical end point of that thinking? For example, someone who does not drive no longer contributing tax to roads, no kids so nothing to education budget, not in receipt of any kind of benefit so none of my taxes going to that please etc etc There is a libertarian answer to that. Toll roads that a private player or people in a locality build
The government interference that people are happy with is verging on communism and authoritarian when it comes to tax and providing for society.
I guess that is the core to being left or right in political leanings.
Alternatively you could say the core to being left or right in political leanings are that you either want to ensure people are looked after or you think looking after people is verging on communism."Leaning right in politics doesn't mean you don't care about people, in fact, it could be argued it is the opposite. Right leaning tend to believe that empowering individuals and businesses, reduces government interference, and encourages competition which ultimately leads to a more prosperous and self sufficient society. In theory creating greater opportunities for people to thrive independently rather than relying on government support that will always provide less. If you want everyone to have the same but that same is less, society will crumble as it has been shown in most communist countries around the world. | |||
"The mess we’ve got now is what happens when you run a health system as some kind of weird ideological cult. Genuinely interested in hearing your solutions for a healthcare service for the UK." (1) Understand what the NHS should do. (2) Understand what the NHS should NOT do. (3) Shed any rigid positions held that do not support (1) above. (1) Nobody today has an accurate answer for what the NHS should do. Proposal: There needs to be a series of national discussions to ascertain this - politically, democratically, operationally and by experts. It should, within reasonable cost/return, probably cover: (a) life-saving treatment (b) A&E services (c) cost-effective prevention of... ...etc. - the list goes on. (2) The above discussions should also consider what it should NOT cover, probably: (a) Cosmetic & elective treatments (b) scenarios where cost vs return does not make sense ...etc. After this, there needs to be an understanding about who is covered, who is not covered and how those people should pay/access (one idea would be to not allow any overseas visitors without their own medical insurance, as other countries do) the system. This should produce some kind of costing. (3) The rigid ideas that need to be challenged, from all sides of the political spectrum include: (a) Should it be free at point of service for all people? (b) Should it be universal and for everyone, or should some people be encouraged to go elsewhere if they can afford it? (c) Should providers outside of the NHS be permitted to operate and, if so, what is the net benefit to society of this? (d) Is state ownership necessary, or desirable? Why - for dogmatic or practical purposes? Is it the responsibility of the government to make people healthy, or to run a health service? If the former, is the government running the health service necessary (or ideal) in order to achieve that aim? (e) Should there be a separate NHS levy/tax, to de-couple and ringfence the NHS budget from consolidated revenue? (this would allow for costs/scope to be monitored more closely, with more optional items being dependent on budget) This needs to be a discussion that includes experts, politicians and builds a broad national consensus (or at least a grudging acknowledgement that a majority have concurred somewhat). It really should cross political and governmental borders - local, devolved, central. Either that, or the right dictator with the right idea needs to shoot a few people and make something good happen. The IT systems are a mess. This is where government is monumentally bad, to the tune of tens of billions (from personal experience, specifically the last Labour government, including mild corruption). The solutions are both simple and complex - a ten-year (50-100bn) plan could easily deliver 20-50bn per year in savings. This takes immense political resolve, not least because it is expensive, long-term and complicated for the government. The NHS is such a huge beast that it's tempting to try to fix it in pieces and, while this is possible, that actually makes the task more complex and at the mercy of politics. Conservative austerity lost the funding needed to fix the NHS systems after Labour messed it up completely, so both major parties are quite at fault here. There is a massive amount of waste in the NHS that one side bangs on about (but won't pay to fix after 14 years) that the other side denies is all that bad. What voters complain about most of all is (1) waiting lists and (2) GP appointments. Private initiatives such as Babylon (now eMed) demonstrate how a GP service could run for 80% of the country on an electronic platform. It ALSO demonstrates that private solutions have limits, as it went bankrupt. An integrated public/private system that leverages outsourced systems and providers, that ignores outdated ideas of trust boundaries, postcode lotteries and the like, and even (gasp) sends patients overseas where appropriate (we import GPs, why not export patients?). A system that works to make people better, regardless of income, but makes people pay where they can afford it (like we have with prescriptions). Oh, and a system that covers the optical and dental needs of the country properly. A system that doesn't see progress as the enemy. A system that rewards those who wish to study medicine and nursing by paying off their student debts over time spent working for the NHS. The solutions are possible, but someone has to actually (a) have the resolve to see it through, (b) be willing to compromise on strongly-held ideals, and (c) do the actual work to get a huge job done. Few politicians last long enough or have the stamina/staying power to see it through. It's long, hard, complex, boring and thankless. | |||
"Can Labour fix it? If you can afford private, go private! I cannot and it never ceases to fail me. I think the question is more one of “Have Labour got the will to fix it, or are they ideologically wedded to a system and a model that is not fit for purpose”? If I could afford to go private I would, but I can’t because I’m taxed so damn much for a system abused by many (missed appointments, “frequent flyers” tying up the ambulance network) maligned by all and ideologically unquestionable. I don’t see why I should have to pay for other people’s healthcare to the extent that I do. Frankly YOU (genrically) are not MY financial responsibility. Where is the logical end point of that thinking? For example, someone who does not drive no longer contributing tax to roads, no kids so nothing to education budget, not in receipt of any kind of benefit so none of my taxes going to that please etc etc The costs of the road network should come out of Road Fund Licence. As a driver I would pay more if my taxes were less and the roads were properly looked after. I’d put my kids through a private school if I didn’t have to pay that elemrent of taxation. The unemployed who don’t want a job, didn’t get a trade or qualifications, and who see life on the dole as a choice - it should be the end of the gravy train. Taxation should provide for: Defence of the realm; Policing and prisons; Caring only for the weakest in scoiety Essential national infrastructure How the rest is provided for, healthcare, pensions, the funding model for education etc should all be open for debate about how to provision it, not about whether the only way society is taxed out of any perosnal agency that removes personal choice and freedom. Like I said, others are not my problem adn I resent paying for them. " You had education. Your mum had healthcare as did you when she was pregnant and gave birth. If you've ever been in a car or used a bus, the roads need doing. Stop being a selfish poo head and recognise you've already used services. | |||
"Can Labour fix it? If you can afford private, go private! I cannot and it never ceases to fail me. I think the question is more one of “Have Labour got the will to fix it, or are they ideologically wedded to a system and a model that is not fit for purpose”? If I could afford to go private I would, but I can’t because I’m taxed so damn much for a system abused by many (missed appointments, “frequent flyers” tying up the ambulance network) maligned by all and ideologically unquestionable. I don’t see why I should have to pay for other people’s healthcare to the extent that I do. Frankly YOU (genrically) are not MY financial responsibility. Where is the logical end point of that thinking? For example, someone who does not drive no longer contributing tax to roads, no kids so nothing to education budget, not in receipt of any kind of benefit so none of my taxes going to that please etc etc There is a libertarian answer to that. Toll roads that a private player or people in a locality build
The government interference that people are happy with is verging on communism and authoritarian when it comes to tax and providing for society.
I guess that is the core to being left or right in political leanings.
Alternatively you could say the core to being left or right in political leanings are that you either want to ensure people are looked after or you think looking after people is verging on communism.
Leaning right in politics doesn't mean you don't care about people, in fact, it could be argued it is the opposite.
Right leaning tend to believe that empowering individuals and businesses, reduces government interference, and encourages competition which ultimately leads to a more prosperous and self sufficient society.
In theory creating greater opportunities for people to thrive independently rather than relying on government support that will always provide less.
If you want everyone to have the same but that same is less, society will crumble as it has been shown in most communist countries around the world. "The assumption that people leaning left actually care about others is a myth. How does passing the responsibility to the government imply that someone cares about others? The ones who genuinely care about an issue would use charitable donations focused on the issue. Using taxation and government is just a way for some people to feel good about themselves and act like they care about others without making personal sacrifices. | |||
"Can Labour fix it? If you can afford private, go private! I cannot and it never ceases to fail me. I think the question is more one of “Have Labour got the will to fix it, or are they ideologically wedded to a system and a model that is not fit for purpose”? If I could afford to go private I would, but I can’t because I’m taxed so damn much for a system abused by many (missed appointments, “frequent flyers” tying up the ambulance network) maligned by all and ideologically unquestionable. I don’t see why I should have to pay for other people’s healthcare to the extent that I do. Frankly YOU (genrically) are not MY financial responsibility. Where is the logical end point of that thinking? For example, someone who does not drive no longer contributing tax to roads, no kids so nothing to education budget, not in receipt of any kind of benefit so none of my taxes going to that please etc etc There is a libertarian answer to that. Toll roads that a private player or people in a locality build
The government interference that people are happy with is verging on communism and authoritarian when it comes to tax and providing for society.
I guess that is the core to being left or right in political leanings.
Alternatively you could say the core to being left or right in political leanings are that you either want to ensure people are looked after or you think looking after people is verging on communism.
Leaning right in politics doesn't mean you don't care about people, in fact, it could be argued it is the opposite.
Right leaning tend to believe that empowering individuals and businesses, reduces government interference, and encourages competition which ultimately leads to a more prosperous and self sufficient society.
In theory creating greater opportunities for people to thrive independently rather than relying on government support that will always provide less.
If you want everyone to have the same but that same is less, society will crumble as it has been shown in most communist countries around the world.
The assumption that people leaning left actually care about others is a myth. How does passing the responsibility to the government imply that someone cares about others? The ones who genuinely care about an issue would use charitable donations focused on the issue. Using taxation and government is just a way for some people to feel good about themselves and act like they care about others without making personal sacrifices."Is that the case, or is it that you just can’t comprehend of people thinking differently to you? | |||
"Can Labour fix it? If you can afford private, go private! I cannot and it never ceases to fail me. I think the question is more one of “Have Labour got the will to fix it, or are they ideologically wedded to a system and a model that is not fit for purpose”? If I could afford to go private I would, but I can’t because I’m taxed so damn much for a system abused by many (missed appointments, “frequent flyers” tying up the ambulance network) maligned by all and ideologically unquestionable. I don’t see why I should have to pay for other people’s healthcare to the extent that I do. Frankly YOU (genrically) are not MY financial responsibility. Where is the logical end point of that thinking? For example, someone who does not drive no longer contributing tax to roads, no kids so nothing to education budget, not in receipt of any kind of benefit so none of my taxes going to that please etc etc There is a libertarian answer to that. Toll roads that a private player or people in a locality build
The government interference that people are happy with is verging on communism and authoritarian when it comes to tax and providing for society.
I guess that is the core to being left or right in political leanings.
Alternatively you could say the core to being left or right in political leanings are that you either want to ensure people are looked after or you think looking after people is verging on communism.
Leaning right in politics doesn't mean you don't care about people, in fact, it could be argued it is the opposite.
Right leaning tend to believe that empowering individuals and businesses, reduces government interference, and encourages competition which ultimately leads to a more prosperous and self sufficient society.
In theory creating greater opportunities for people to thrive independently rather than relying on government support that will always provide less.
If you want everyone to have the same but that same is less, society will crumble as it has been shown in most communist countries around the world.
The assumption that people leaning left actually care about others is a myth. How does passing the responsibility to the government imply that someone cares about others? The ones who genuinely care about an issue would use charitable donations focused on the issue. Using taxation and government is just a way for some people to feel good about themselves and act like they care about others without making personal sacrifices.
Is that the case, or is it that you just can’t comprehend of people thinking differently to you?"How so? I am yet to hear from a left winger give a solid answer on why they wouldn't give their own money to charity and would rather get the government to do the charity for issues which they care about. | |||
"Can Labour fix it? If you can afford private, go private! I cannot and it never ceases to fail me. I think the question is more one of “Have Labour got the will to fix it, or are they ideologically wedded to a system and a model that is not fit for purpose”? If I could afford to go private I would, but I can’t because I’m taxed so damn much for a system abused by many (missed appointments, “frequent flyers” tying up the ambulance network) maligned by all and ideologically unquestionable. I don’t see why I should have to pay for other people’s healthcare to the extent that I do. Frankly YOU (genrically) are not MY financial responsibility. Where is the logical end point of that thinking? For example, someone who does not drive no longer contributing tax to roads, no kids so nothing to education budget, not in receipt of any kind of benefit so none of my taxes going to that please etc etc There is a libertarian answer to that. Toll roads that a private player or people in a locality build
The government interference that people are happy with is verging on communism and authoritarian when it comes to tax and providing for society.
I guess that is the core to being left or right in political leanings.
Alternatively you could say the core to being left or right in political leanings are that you either want to ensure people are looked after or you think looking after people is verging on communism.
Leaning right in politics doesn't mean you don't care about people, in fact, it could be argued it is the opposite.
Right leaning tend to believe that empowering individuals and businesses, reduces government interference, and encourages competition which ultimately leads to a more prosperous and self sufficient society.
In theory creating greater opportunities for people to thrive independently rather than relying on government support that will always provide less.
If you want everyone to have the same but that same is less, society will crumble as it has been shown in most communist countries around the world.
The assumption that people leaning left actually care about others is a myth. How does passing the responsibility to the government imply that someone cares about others? The ones who genuinely care about an issue would use charitable donations focused on the issue. Using taxation and government is just a way for some people to feel good about themselves and act like they care about others without making personal sacrifices.
Is that the case, or is it that you just can’t comprehend of people thinking differently to you?
How so? I am yet to hear from a left winger give a solid answer on why they wouldn't give their own money to charity and would rather get the government to do the charity for issues which they care about."There’s no charity that has the infrastructure to provide what the government does, and I happen to be a patriot, I want the people of this country to be looked after. | |||
| |||
" The assumption that people leaning left actually care about others is a myth. How does passing the responsibility to the government imply that someone cares about others? The ones who genuinely care about an issue would use charitable donations focused on the issue. Using taxation and government is just a way for some people to feel good about themselves and act like they care about others without making personal sacrifices. Is that the case, or is it that you just can’t comprehend of people thinking differently to you? How so? I am yet to hear from a left winger give a solid answer on why they wouldn't give their own money to charity and would rather get the government to do the charity for issues which they care about. There’s no charity that has the infrastructure to provide what the government does, and I happen to be a patriot, I want the people of this country to be looked after." You don't need huge infrastructure run by government to provide what you want to provide. Charitable hospitals are a thing in many countries and they don't need a huge infrastructure by the government to function. If you really care about other people, you will put your money where your mouth is. All I see from left wingers is mental gymnastics to justify why wouldn't take money out of their own pockets. We don't have infinite resources to solve all the problems in the country like homelessness, health care, pensions, asylum, etc. This means we have to pick and choose which problems we want to invest in. Instead of letting government arbitrarily spend money on random things and be inefficient and wasteful in the process, why don't people who care about issues spend their own money on what they care about? You want to tackle food poverty? Donate to food banks. Doing this will make your life fulfilling and give you happiness. Instead of doing that, if someone is going to just pass comments on internet about how the government should collect more taxes from others to fix the problem, it doesn't show the person is compassionate. It's just a way to deflect responsibility while also maintaining a "holier than thou" attitude. | |||
" The assumption that people leaning left actually care about others is a myth. How does passing the responsibility to the government imply that someone cares about others? The ones who genuinely care about an issue would use charitable donations focused on the issue. Using taxation and government is just a way for some people to feel good about themselves and act like they care about others without making personal sacrifices. Is that the case, or is it that you just can’t comprehend of people thinking differently to you? How so? I am yet to hear from a left winger give a solid answer on why they wouldn't give their own money to charity and would rather get the government to do the charity for issues which they care about. There’s no charity that has the infrastructure to provide what the government does, and I happen to be a patriot, I want the people of this country to be looked after. You don't need huge infrastructure run by government to provide what you want to provide. Charitable hospitals are a thing in many countries and they don't need a huge infrastructure by the government to function. If you really care about other people, you will put your money where your mouth is. All I see from left wingers is mental gymnastics to justify why wouldn't take money out of their own pockets. We don't have infinite resources to solve all the problems in the country like homelessness, health care, pensions, asylum, etc. This means we have to pick and choose which problems we want to invest in. Instead of letting government arbitrarily spend money on random things and be inefficient and wasteful in the process, why don't people who care about issues spend their own money on what they care about? You want to tackle food poverty? Donate to food banks. Doing this will make your life fulfilling and give you happiness. Instead of doing that, if someone is going to just pass comments on internet about how the government should collect more taxes from others to fix the problem, it doesn't show the person is compassionate. It's just a way to deflect responsibility while also maintaining a "holier than thou" attitude." You want charitable hospitals? Really? | |||
" The assumption that people leaning left actually care about others is a myth. How does passing the responsibility to the government imply that someone cares about others? The ones who genuinely care about an issue would use charitable donations focused on the issue. Using taxation and government is just a way for some people to feel good about themselves and act like they care about others without making personal sacrifices. Is that the case, or is it that you just can’t comprehend of people thinking differently to you? How so? I am yet to hear from a left winger give a solid answer on why they wouldn't give their own money to charity and would rather get the government to do the charity for issues which they care about. There’s no charity that has the infrastructure to provide what the government does, and I happen to be a patriot, I want the people of this country to be looked after. You don't need huge infrastructure run by government to provide what you want to provide. Charitable hospitals are a thing in many countries and they don't need a huge infrastructure by the government to function. If you really care about other people, you will put your money where your mouth is. All I see from left wingers is mental gymnastics to justify why wouldn't take money out of their own pockets. We don't have infinite resources to solve all the problems in the country like homelessness, health care, pensions, asylum, etc. This means we have to pick and choose which problems we want to invest in. Instead of letting government arbitrarily spend money on random things and be inefficient and wasteful in the process, why don't people who care about issues spend their own money on what they care about? You want to tackle food poverty? Donate to food banks. Doing this will make your life fulfilling and give you happiness. Instead of doing that, if someone is going to just pass comments on internet about how the government should collect more taxes from others to fix the problem, it doesn't show the person is compassionate. It's just a way to deflect responsibility while also maintaining a "holier than thou" attitude. You want charitable hospitals? Really?" I am saying it already exists in many countries. | |||
" The assumption that people leaning left actually care about others is a myth. How does passing the responsibility to the government imply that someone cares about others? The ones who genuinely care about an issue would use charitable donations focused on the issue. Using taxation and government is just a way for some people to feel good about themselves and act like they care about others without making personal sacrifices. Is that the case, or is it that you just can’t comprehend of people thinking differently to you? How so? I am yet to hear from a left winger give a solid answer on why they wouldn't give their own money to charity and would rather get the government to do the charity for issues which they care about. There’s no charity that has the infrastructure to provide what the government does, and I happen to be a patriot, I want the people of this country to be looked after. You don't need huge infrastructure run by government to provide what you want to provide. Charitable hospitals are a thing in many countries and they don't need a huge infrastructure by the government to function. If you really care about other people, you will put your money where your mouth is. All I see from left wingers is mental gymnastics to justify why wouldn't take money out of their own pockets. We don't have infinite resources to solve all the problems in the country like homelessness, health care, pensions, asylum, etc. This means we have to pick and choose which problems we want to invest in. Instead of letting government arbitrarily spend money on random things and be inefficient and wasteful in the process, why don't people who care about issues spend their own money on what they care about? You want to tackle food poverty? Donate to food banks. Doing this will make your life fulfilling and give you happiness. Instead of doing that, if someone is going to just pass comments on internet about how the government should collect more taxes from others to fix the problem, it doesn't show the person is compassionate. It's just a way to deflect responsibility while also maintaining a "holier than thou" attitude. You want charitable hospitals? Really? I am saying it already exists in many countries." Third world countries? So are you advocating that the 6th richest country in the world should now return to the standards of the Victorian era? Yay 21st Century! | |||
" Like I said, others are not my problem adn I resent paying for them. " Let me give you an example….. Let’s say a person got rushed into hospital after basically collapsing… it was found this person had pneumonia.. which has also caused fluid in the lungs… Given another 6 hrs this person would have been rushed into ICU Question….. Do you “resent” paying for them? Honest question? | |||
| |||
" Like I said, others are not my problem adn I resent paying for them. Let me give you an example….. Let’s say a person got rushed into hospital after basically collapsing… it was found this person had pneumonia.. which has also caused fluid in the lungs… Given another 6 hrs this person would have been rushed into ICU Question….. Do you “resent” paying for them? Honest question? " Altruistic behaviour has no place in a modern democracy. Sod the women and trample the children.  | |||
So much for their “sacrifice” | |||
" The assumption that people leaning left actually care about others is a myth. How does passing the responsibility to the government imply that someone cares about others? The ones who genuinely care about an issue would use charitable donations focused on the issue. Using taxation and government is just a way for some people to feel good about themselves and act like they care about others without making personal sacrifices. Is that the case, or is it that you just can’t comprehend of people thinking differently to you? How so? I am yet to hear from a left winger give a solid answer on why they wouldn't give their own money to charity and would rather get the government to do the charity for issues which they care about. There’s no charity that has the infrastructure to provide what the government does, and I happen to be a patriot, I want the people of this country to be looked after. You don't need huge infrastructure run by government to provide what you want to provide. Charitable hospitals are a thing in many countries and they don't need a huge infrastructure by the government to function. If you really care about other people, you will put your money where your mouth is. All I see from left wingers is mental gymnastics to justify why wouldn't take money out of their own pockets. We don't have infinite resources to solve all the problems in the country like homelessness, health care, pensions, asylum, etc. This means we have to pick and choose which problems we want to invest in. Instead of letting government arbitrarily spend money on random things and be inefficient and wasteful in the process, why don't people who care about issues spend their own money on what they care about? You want to tackle food poverty? Donate to food banks. Doing this will make your life fulfilling and give you happiness. Instead of doing that, if someone is going to just pass comments on internet about how the government should collect more taxes from others to fix the problem, it doesn't show the person is compassionate. It's just a way to deflect responsibility while also maintaining a "holier than thou" attitude. You want charitable hospitals? Really? I am saying it already exists in many countries. Third world countries? So are you advocating that the 6th richest country in the world should now return to the standards of the Victorian era? Yay 21st Century!" It's funny the kind of things leftists do just so that they can avoid talking about the fact that they would never put their own money on causes they care about. In practice, the NHS is also a charitable hospital, only run by the government in a terrible way, forcing taxes from everyone. There are numerous non-profit hospitals in Europe and US. And you don't even need hospitals to be charitable. You can build charity funds to pay for people to take treatment in private hospitals. So yes. If you are genuinely compassionate about an issue and are willing to make personal sacrifice for it, there is so much you can do to fix the issue better than any government can. Instead, if you want to blame others for not solving an issue and feel good about yourself while doing nothing about it, then a government run service acts as the perfect scapegoat. | |||
"Seems like some of the 90s generation of servicemen no longer give a shit about anyone except themselves
So much for their “sacrifice”"Tbf being open and honest about it is much better than acting like they care but not actually | |||
" The assumption that people leaning left actually care about others is a myth. How does passing the responsibility to the government imply that someone cares about others? The ones who genuinely care about an issue would use charitable donations focused on the issue. Using taxation and government is just a way for some people to feel good about themselves and act like they care about others without making personal sacrifices. Is that the case, or is it that you just can’t comprehend of people thinking differently to you? How so? I am yet to hear from a left winger give a solid answer on why they wouldn't give their own money to charity and would rather get the government to do the charity for issues which they care about. There’s no charity that has the infrastructure to provide what the government does, and I happen to be a patriot, I want the people of this country to be looked after. You don't need huge infrastructure run by government to provide what you want to provide. Charitable hospitals are a thing in many countries and they don't need a huge infrastructure by the government to function. If you really care about other people, you will put your money where your mouth is. All I see from left wingers is mental gymnastics to justify why wouldn't take money out of their own pockets. We don't have infinite resources to solve all the problems in the country like homelessness, health care, pensions, asylum, etc. This means we have to pick and choose which problems we want to invest in. Instead of letting government arbitrarily spend money on random things and be inefficient and wasteful in the process, why don't people who care about issues spend their own money on what they care about? You want to tackle food poverty? Donate to food banks. Doing this will make your life fulfilling and give you happiness. Instead of doing that, if someone is going to just pass comments on internet about how the government should collect more taxes from others to fix the problem, it doesn't show the person is compassionate. It's just a way to deflect responsibility while also maintaining a "holier than thou" attitude. You want charitable hospitals? Really? I am saying it already exists in many countries. Third world countries? So are you advocating that the 6th richest country in the world should now return to the standards of the Victorian era? Yay 21st Century! It's funny the kind of things leftists do just so that they can avoid talking about the fact that they would never put their own money on causes they care about. In practice, the NHS is also a charitable hospital, only run by the government in a terrible way, forcing taxes from everyone. There are numerous non-profit hospitals in Europe and US. And you don't even need hospitals to be charitable. You can build charity funds to pay for people to take treatment in private hospitals. So yes. If you are genuinely compassionate about an issue and are willing to make personal sacrifice for it, there is so much you can do to fix the issue better than any government can. Instead, if you want to blame others for not solving an issue and feel good about yourself while doing nothing about it, then a government run service acts as the perfect scapegoat. " “Leftists” LOL LOL LOL | |||
"Seems like some of the 90s generation of servicemen no longer give a shit about anyone except themselves
So much for their “sacrifice”
Tbf being open and honest about it is much better than acting like they care but not actually "It’s hypocritical because they bang on about their patriotism and service to their country but actually don’t give a shit about helping to look after people weaker or poorer than themselves. | |||
" The assumption that people leaning left actually care about others is a myth. How does passing the responsibility to the government imply that someone cares about others? The ones who genuinely care about an issue would use charitable donations focused on the issue. Using taxation and government is just a way for some people to feel good about themselves and act like they care about others without making personal sacrifices. Is that the case, or is it that you just can’t comprehend of people thinking differently to you? How so? I am yet to hear from a left winger give a solid answer on why they wouldn't give their own money to charity and would rather get the government to do the charity for issues which they care about. There’s no charity that has the infrastructure to provide what the government does, and I happen to be a patriot, I want the people of this country to be looked after. You don't need huge infrastructure run by government to provide what you want to provide. Charitable hospitals are a thing in many countries and they don't need a huge infrastructure by the government to function. If you really care about other people, you will put your money where your mouth is. All I see from left wingers is mental gymnastics to justify why wouldn't take money out of their own pockets. We don't have infinite resources to solve all the problems in the country like homelessness, health care, pensions, asylum, etc. This means we have to pick and choose which problems we want to invest in. Instead of letting government arbitrarily spend money on random things and be inefficient and wasteful in the process, why don't people who care about issues spend their own money on what they care about? You want to tackle food poverty? Donate to food banks. Doing this will make your life fulfilling and give you happiness. Instead of doing that, if someone is going to just pass comments on internet about how the government should collect more taxes from others to fix the problem, it doesn't show the person is compassionate. It's just a way to deflect responsibility while also maintaining a "holier than thou" attitude. You want charitable hospitals? Really? I am saying it already exists in many countries. Third world countries? So are you advocating that the 6th richest country in the world should now return to the standards of the Victorian era? Yay 21st Century! It's funny the kind of things leftists do just so that they can avoid talking about the fact that they would never put their own money on causes they care about. In practice, the NHS is also a charitable hospital, only run by the government in a terrible way, forcing taxes from everyone. There are numerous non-profit hospitals in Europe and US. And you don't even need hospitals to be charitable. You can build charity funds to pay for people to take treatment in private hospitals. So yes. If you are genuinely compassionate about an issue and are willing to make personal sacrifice for it, there is so much you can do to fix the issue better than any government can. Instead, if you want to blame others for not solving an issue and feel good about yourself while doing nothing about it, then a government run service acts as the perfect scapegoat. “Leftists” LOL LOL LOL" Got any point to make? Or an explanation for why left wingers hate charitable donations and prefer passing responsibility to the government? | |||
" The assumption that people leaning left actually care about others is a myth. How does passing the responsibility to the government imply that someone cares about others? The ones who genuinely care about an issue would use charitable donations focused on the issue. Using taxation and government is just a way for some people to feel good about themselves and act like they care about others without making personal sacrifices. Is that the case, or is it that you just can’t comprehend of people thinking differently to you? How so? I am yet to hear from a left winger give a solid answer on why they wouldn't give their own money to charity and would rather get the government to do the charity for issues which they care about. There’s no charity that has the infrastructure to provide what the government does, and I happen to be a patriot, I want the people of this country to be looked after. You don't need huge infrastructure run by government to provide what you want to provide. Charitable hospitals are a thing in many countries and they don't need a huge infrastructure by the government to function. If you really care about other people, you will put your money where your mouth is. All I see from left wingers is mental gymnastics to justify why wouldn't take money out of their own pockets. We don't have infinite resources to solve all the problems in the country like homelessness, health care, pensions, asylum, etc. This means we have to pick and choose which problems we want to invest in. Instead of letting government arbitrarily spend money on random things and be inefficient and wasteful in the process, why don't people who care about issues spend their own money on what they care about? You want to tackle food poverty? Donate to food banks. Doing this will make your life fulfilling and give you happiness. Instead of doing that, if someone is going to just pass comments on internet about how the government should collect more taxes from others to fix the problem, it doesn't show the person is compassionate. It's just a way to deflect responsibility while also maintaining a "holier than thou" attitude. You want charitable hospitals? Really? I am saying it already exists in many countries. Third world countries? So are you advocating that the 6th richest country in the world should now return to the standards of the Victorian era? Yay 21st Century! It's funny the kind of things leftists do just so that they can avoid talking about the fact that they would never put their own money on causes they care about. In practice, the NHS is also a charitable hospital, only run by the government in a terrible way, forcing taxes from everyone. There are numerous non-profit hospitals in Europe and US. And you don't even need hospitals to be charitable. You can build charity funds to pay for people to take treatment in private hospitals. So yes. If you are genuinely compassionate about an issue and are willing to make personal sacrifice for it, there is so much you can do to fix the issue better than any government can. Instead, if you want to blame others for not solving an issue and feel good about yourself while doing nothing about it, then a government run service acts as the perfect scapegoat. “Leftists” LOL LOL LOL Got any point to make? Or an explanation for why left wingers hate charitable donations and prefer passing responsibility to the government?" Jesus, you really believe this shit, don’t you? | |||
| |||
" The assumption that people leaning left actually care about others is a myth. How does passing the responsibility to the government imply that someone cares about others? The ones who genuinely care about an issue would use charitable donations focused on the issue. Using taxation and government is just a way for some people to feel good about themselves and act like they care about others without making personal sacrifices. Is that the case, or is it that you just can’t comprehend of people thinking differently to you? How so? I am yet to hear from a left winger give a solid answer on why they wouldn't give their own money to charity and would rather get the government to do the charity for issues which they care about. There’s no charity that has the infrastructure to provide what the government does, and I happen to be a patriot, I want the people of this country to be looked after. You don't need huge infrastructure run by government to provide what you want to provide. Charitable hospitals are a thing in many countries and they don't need a huge infrastructure by the government to function. If you really care about other people, you will put your money where your mouth is. All I see from left wingers is mental gymnastics to justify why wouldn't take money out of their own pockets. We don't have infinite resources to solve all the problems in the country like homelessness, health care, pensions, asylum, etc. This means we have to pick and choose which problems we want to invest in. Instead of letting government arbitrarily spend money on random things and be inefficient and wasteful in the process, why don't people who care about issues spend their own money on what they care about? You want to tackle food poverty? Donate to food banks. Doing this will make your life fulfilling and give you happiness. Instead of doing that, if someone is going to just pass comments on internet about how the government should collect more taxes from others to fix the problem, it doesn't show the person is compassionate. It's just a way to deflect responsibility while also maintaining a "holier than thou" attitude. You want charitable hospitals? Really? I am saying it already exists in many countries. Third world countries? So are you advocating that the 6th richest country in the world should now return to the standards of the Victorian era? Yay 21st Century! It's funny the kind of things leftists do just so that they can avoid talking about the fact that they would never put their own money on causes they care about. In practice, the NHS is also a charitable hospital, only run by the government in a terrible way, forcing taxes from everyone. There are numerous non-profit hospitals in Europe and US. And you don't even need hospitals to be charitable. You can build charity funds to pay for people to take treatment in private hospitals. So yes. If you are genuinely compassionate about an issue and are willing to make personal sacrifice for it, there is so much you can do to fix the issue better than any government can. Instead, if you want to blame others for not solving an issue and feel good about yourself while doing nothing about it, then a government run service acts as the perfect scapegoat. “Leftists” LOL LOL LOL Got any point to make? Or an explanation for why left wingers hate charitable donations and prefer passing responsibility to the government? Jesus, you really believe this shit, don’t you?" Yet to hear an explanation. | |||
| |||
" I think it is weird that people ascribe a political leaning towards charity. Or take the piss out of a supposed political leaning. I bet there are philanthropists of left and right leanings who donate to charities. " I don't mind people minding their own business, whether they donate to charity or not. But if someone is going to lecture on the internet about compassion and altruism, I would expect them to put their money where their mouth is. If all they want to do is to virtue signal in public while lacking any of those said virtues, I will point out their hypocrisy to them. Even if they want the government to do the work, if they really cared, they would have surely tried paying more voluntary tax? Last time I checked, the government got something around £1500 in a year in voluntary taxes. If every left winger on the internet paid a pound, they would have received lot more. But hey, it's easy to act like one is so sanctimonious on the internet than actually making personal sacrifices for the cause. | |||
" The assumption that people leaning left actually care about others is a myth. How does passing the responsibility to the government imply that someone cares about others? The ones who genuinely care about an issue would use charitable donations focused on the issue. Using taxation and government is just a way for some people to feel good about themselves and act like they care about others without making personal sacrifices. Is that the case, or is it that you just can’t comprehend of people thinking differently to you? How so? I am yet to hear from a left winger give a solid answer on why they wouldn't give their own money to charity and would rather get the government to do the charity for issues which they care about. There’s no charity that has the infrastructure to provide what the government does, and I happen to be a patriot, I want the people of this country to be looked after. You don't need huge infrastructure run by government to provide what you want to provide. Charitable hospitals are a thing in many countries and they don't need a huge infrastructure by the government to function. If you really care about other people, you will put your money where your mouth is. All I see from left wingers is mental gymnastics to justify why wouldn't take money out of their own pockets. We don't have infinite resources to solve all the problems in the country like homelessness, health care, pensions, asylum, etc. This means we have to pick and choose which problems we want to invest in. Instead of letting government arbitrarily spend money on random things and be inefficient and wasteful in the process, why don't people who care about issues spend their own money on what they care about? You want to tackle food poverty? Donate to food banks. Doing this will make your life fulfilling and give you happiness. Instead of doing that, if someone is going to just pass comments on internet about how the government should collect more taxes from others to fix the problem, it doesn't show the person is compassionate. It's just a way to deflect responsibility while also maintaining a "holier than thou" attitude. You want charitable hospitals? Really? I am saying it already exists in many countries. Third world countries? So are you advocating that the 6th richest country in the world should now return to the standards of the Victorian era? Yay 21st Century! It's funny the kind of things leftists do just so that they can avoid talking about the fact that they would never put their own money on causes they care about. In practice, the NHS is also a charitable hospital, only run by the government in a terrible way, forcing taxes from everyone. There are numerous non-profit hospitals in Europe and US. And you don't even need hospitals to be charitable. You can build charity funds to pay for people to take treatment in private hospitals. So yes. If you are genuinely compassionate about an issue and are willing to make personal sacrifice for it, there is so much you can do to fix the issue better than any government can. Instead, if you want to blame others for not solving an issue and feel good about yourself while doing nothing about it, then a government run service acts as the perfect scapegoat. “Leftists” LOL LOL LOL Got any point to make? Or an explanation for why left wingers hate charitable donations and prefer passing responsibility to the government?" You’ll have to ask left wingers. For me though charity relies on people being prepared to be charitable. There is no guarantee their views or circumstances will enable the person to continue to be charitable. Personally I think it is better for the state to provide society with a good level of consistent support that is universal. Just feels civilised to me! | |||
" I think it is weird that people ascribe a political leaning towards charity. Or take the piss out of a supposed political leaning. I bet there are philanthropists of left and right leanings who donate to charities. I don't mind people minding their own business, whether they donate to charity or not. But if someone is going to lecture on the internet about compassion and altruism, I would expect them to put their money where their mouth is. If all they want to do is to virtue signal in public while lacking any of those said virtues, I will point out their hypocrisy to them. Even if they want the government to do the work, if they really cared, they would have surely tried paying more voluntary tax? Last time I checked, the government got something around £1500 in a year in voluntary taxes. If every left winger on the internet paid a pound, they would have received lot more. But hey, it's easy to act like one is so sanctimonious on the internet than actually making personal sacrifices for the cause. " People give to charity all the time, but the healthcare needs of a country are not something that should be left to charity. | |||
" I think it is weird that people ascribe a political leaning towards charity. Or take the piss out of a supposed political leaning. I bet there are philanthropists of left and right leanings who donate to charities. I don't mind people minding their own business, whether they donate to charity or not. But if someone is going to lecture on the internet about compassion and altruism, I would expect them to put their money where their mouth is. If all they want to do is to virtue signal in public while lacking any of those said virtues, I will point out their hypocrisy to them. Even if they want the government to do the work, if they really cared, they would have surely tried paying more voluntary tax? Last time I checked, the government got something around £1500 in a year in voluntary taxes. If every left winger on the internet paid a pound, they would have received lot more. But hey, it's easy to act like one is so sanctimonious on the internet than actually making personal sacrifices for the cause. People give to charity all the time, but the healthcare needs of a country are not something that should be left to charity. " Indeed. Just look at how much is raises in the UK for Children in Need, or Soccer Aid, or every time there is a disaster somewhere in the world. The notion that politics equates to any form of charity is simply pathetic! | |||
"My word there is some absolute bollocks being spouted in this thread. I bet not one of those spouting this shit is a high earner and yet they want a society that doesn’t look after anyone or anything except via the charity of the wealthy! People on here actually advocating for no state basically. It’s like turkeys voting for xmas. I could understand if they were rich and genuinely believed they could survive with little or no state at all, but seriously! I bet the majority are 40% taxpayers at best. Watch them start to cry when… 1. They can’t afford their healthcare 2. They can’t afford to send their kids to school 3. The private security company that replaced the police refuse to come and get the burglar out of your house because you didn’t pay their fee 4. You can’t drive anywhere without paying a few quid for each country lane and B road Etc etc" If a person wanted to invest in their own health and support why do they need to be rich? Prioritising their outgoings on health could make that a reality and it could help the longterm health and fitness of more people if they took personal ownership. Being in the top tax bracket isn't putting someone in the rich bucket, top earners on PAYE but not rich. However you do have a point on not being able to send their kids to school, we will see how that unfolds. Finding the balance between state intervention and personal responsibility is critical for a successful society, overreach and it becomes authoritarian and resented. I would prefer tax incentives to encourage personal ownership over being forced to provide tax £'s to something that is failing terribly and has no logical way of improving. | |||
" I think it is weird that people ascribe a political leaning towards charity. Or take the piss out of a supposed political leaning. I bet there are philanthropists of left and right leanings who donate to charities. I don't mind people minding their own business, whether they donate to charity or not. But if someone is going to lecture on the internet about compassion and altruism, I would expect them to put their money where their mouth is. If all they want to do is to virtue signal in public while lacking any of those said virtues, I will point out their hypocrisy to them. Even if they want the government to do the work, if they really cared, they would have surely tried paying more voluntary tax? Last time I checked, the government got something around £1500 in a year in voluntary taxes. If every left winger on the internet paid a pound, they would have received lot more. But hey, it's easy to act like one is so sanctimonious on the internet than actually making personal sacrifices for the cause. People give to charity all the time, but the healthcare needs of a country are not something that should be left to charity. " Do you overpay to HMRC? It seems like the sensible thing to do if you believe strongly that charitable donations are not the right way to go. | |||
"My word there is some absolute bollocks being spouted in this thread. I bet not one of those spouting this shit is a high earner and yet they want a society that doesn’t look after anyone or anything except via the charity of the wealthy! People on here actually advocating for no state basically. It’s like turkeys voting for xmas. I could understand if they were rich and genuinely believed they could survive with little or no state at all, but seriously! I bet the majority are 40% taxpayers at best. Watch them start to cry when… 1. They can’t afford their healthcare 2. They can’t afford to send their kids to school 3. The private security company that replaced the police refuse to come and get the burglar out of your house because you didn’t pay their fee 4. You can’t drive anywhere without paying a few quid for each country lane and B road Etc etc If a person wanted to invest in their own health and support why do they need to be rich? Prioritising their outgoings on health could make that a reality and it could help the longterm health and fitness of more people if they took personal ownership. Being in the top tax bracket isn't putting someone in the rich bucket, top earners on PAYE but not rich. However you do have a point on not being able to send their kids to school, we will see how that unfolds. Finding the balance between state intervention and personal responsibility is critical for a successful society, overreach and it becomes authoritarian and resented. I would prefer tax incentives to encourage personal ownership over being forced to provide tax £'s to something that is failing terribly and has no logical way of improving. " You mentioned (tax) incentives in relation to private health insurance previously. I have considered this but see some problems/issues but see a way through (that works for me) that would be akin to private schools. 1. I do not think you should be able to opt out of your tax contributions simply because you don’t use a public service. However, I think the saving to taxpayers should still be recognised. 2. So I would remove IPT and VAT from healthcare (insurance and treatment) to make it more affordable and encourage take up to reduce pressure on public services. 3. However, no tax rebate as you may at some point still need to use the public service (A&E, Ambulance etc) or as per my other points on conditions or level of cover, you may have no choice of going public if you maxed your private healthcare. | |||
" I think it is weird that people ascribe a political leaning towards charity. Or take the piss out of a supposed political leaning. I bet there are philanthropists of left and right leanings who donate to charities. I don't mind people minding their own business, whether they donate to charity or not. But if someone is going to lecture on the internet about compassion and altruism, I would expect them to put their money where their mouth is. If all they want to do is to virtue signal in public while lacking any of those said virtues, I will point out their hypocrisy to them. Even if they want the government to do the work, if they really cared, they would have surely tried paying more voluntary tax? Last time I checked, the government got something around £1500 in a year in voluntary taxes. If every left winger on the internet paid a pound, they would have received lot more. But hey, it's easy to act like one is so sanctimonious on the internet than actually making personal sacrifices for the cause. People give to charity all the time, but the healthcare needs of a country are not something that should be left to charity. Do you overpay to HMRC? It seems like the sensible thing to do if you believe strongly that charitable donations are not the right way to go. " I don’t believe that charitable donations are wrong, I just believe that the health of a nation is too important to be left to something like charity. I’m patriotic like that. I could be an edge lord on the internet, safe in the knowledge that the stuff I profess to want will never come about, and that I will always have a safety net, but that seems a bit, well, pathetic. | |||
"My word there is some absolute bollocks being spouted in this thread. I bet not one of those spouting this shit is a high earner and yet they want a society that doesn’t look after anyone or anything except via the charity of the wealthy! People on here actually advocating for no state basically. It’s like turkeys voting for xmas. I could understand if they were rich and genuinely believed they could survive with little or no state at all, but seriously! I bet the majority are 40% taxpayers at best. Watch them start to cry when… 1. They can’t afford their healthcare 2. They can’t afford to send their kids to school 3. The private security company that replaced the police refuse to come and get the burglar out of your house because you didn’t pay their fee 4. You can’t drive anywhere without paying a few quid for each country lane and B road Etc etc If a person wanted to invest in their own health and support why do they need to be rich? Prioritising their outgoings on health could make that a reality and it could help the longterm health and fitness of more people if they took personal ownership. Being in the top tax bracket isn't putting someone in the rich bucket, top earners on PAYE but not rich. However you do have a point on not being able to send their kids to school, we will see how that unfolds. Finding the balance between state intervention and personal responsibility is critical for a successful society, overreach and it becomes authoritarian and resented. I would prefer tax incentives to encourage personal ownership over being forced to provide tax £'s to something that is failing terribly and has no logical way of improving. You mentioned (tax) incentives in relation to private health insurance previously. I have considered this but see some problems/issues but see a way through (that works for me) that would be akin to private schools. 1. I do not think you should be able to opt out of your tax contributions simply because you don’t use a public service. However, I think the saving to taxpayers should still be recognised. 2. So I would remove IPT and VAT from healthcare (insurance and treatment) to make it more affordable and encourage take up to reduce pressure on public services. 3. However, no tax rebate as you may at some point still need to use the public service (A&E, Ambulance etc) or as per my other points on conditions or level of cover, you may have no choice of going public if you maxed your private healthcare." The tax % could stay the same, the contribution would drop by removing the services outside of A&E. There could be an increase tax at that point to cover social care needs, we need to start thinking outside of the walled garden of the NHS. | |||
" I think it is weird that people ascribe a political leaning towards charity. Or take the piss out of a supposed political leaning. I bet there are philanthropists of left and right leanings who donate to charities. I don't mind people minding their own business, whether they donate to charity or not. But if someone is going to lecture on the internet about compassion and altruism, I would expect them to put their money where their mouth is. If all they want to do is to virtue signal in public while lacking any of those said virtues, I will point out their hypocrisy to them. Even if they want the government to do the work, if they really cared, they would have surely tried paying more voluntary tax? Last time I checked, the government got something around £1500 in a year in voluntary taxes. If every left winger on the internet paid a pound, they would have received lot more. But hey, it's easy to act like one is so sanctimonious on the internet than actually making personal sacrifices for the cause. People give to charity all the time, but the healthcare needs of a country are not something that should be left to charity. " Why not? Governments have zero incentives to solve these problems because elections are fought on multiple issues and this is one of the many. And why is it just healthcare? Because that's the only issue you care about? I care about other issues like kids without parents. Some people care about homelessness. But we don't have infinite resources which means we have to pick and choose where our charitable money/tax goes into. Rather than government making an arbitrary decision and forcing everyone's hands, why not let individuals make that decision themselves? Again, none of this matters if you genuinely care about the issue. We live in a free country, there are lot of ways for you to donate your own money to healthcare. | |||
" I think it is weird that people ascribe a political leaning towards charity. Or take the piss out of a supposed political leaning. I bet there are philanthropists of left and right leanings who donate to charities. I don't mind people minding their own business, whether they donate to charity or not. But if someone is going to lecture on the internet about compassion and altruism, I would expect them to put their money where their mouth is. If all they want to do is to virtue signal in public while lacking any of those said virtues, I will point out their hypocrisy to them. Even if they want the government to do the work, if they really cared, they would have surely tried paying more voluntary tax? Last time I checked, the government got something around £1500 in a year in voluntary taxes. If every left winger on the internet paid a pound, they would have received lot more. But hey, it's easy to act like one is so sanctimonious on the internet than actually making personal sacrifices for the cause. People give to charity all the time, but the healthcare needs of a country are not something that should be left to charity. Do you overpay to HMRC? It seems like the sensible thing to do if you believe strongly that charitable donations are not the right way to go. I don’t believe that charitable donations are wrong, I just believe that the health of a nation is too important to be left to something like charity. I’m patriotic like that. I could be an edge lord on the internet, safe in the knowledge that the stuff I profess to want will never come about, and that I will always have a safety net, but that seems a bit, well, pathetic." If you are patriotic and care about healthcare, why aren't you making overpayments to HMRC? | |||
" I think it is weird that people ascribe a political leaning towards charity. Or take the piss out of a supposed political leaning. I bet there are philanthropists of left and right leanings who donate to charities. I don't mind people minding their own business, whether they donate to charity or not. But if someone is going to lecture on the internet about compassion and altruism, I would expect them to put their money where their mouth is. If all they want to do is to virtue signal in public while lacking any of those said virtues, I will point out their hypocrisy to them. Even if they want the government to do the work, if they really cared, they would have surely tried paying more voluntary tax? Last time I checked, the government got something around £1500 in a year in voluntary taxes. If every left winger on the internet paid a pound, they would have received lot more. But hey, it's easy to act like one is so sanctimonious on the internet than actually making personal sacrifices for the cause. People give to charity all the time, but the healthcare needs of a country are not something that should be left to charity. Indeed. Just look at how much is raises in the UK for Children in Need, or Soccer Aid, or every time there is a disaster somewhere in the world. The notion that politics equates to any form of charity is simply pathetic!" What's pathetic is acting like one is so compassionate about world problems while personally doing nothing about it. | |||
" I think it is weird that people ascribe a political leaning towards charity. Or take the piss out of a supposed political leaning. I bet there are philanthropists of left and right leanings who donate to charities. I don't mind people minding their own business, whether they donate to charity or not. But if someone is going to lecture on the internet about compassion and altruism, I would expect them to put their money where their mouth is. If all they want to do is to virtue signal in public while lacking any of those said virtues, I will point out their hypocrisy to them. Even if they want the government to do the work, if they really cared, they would have surely tried paying more voluntary tax? Last time I checked, the government got something around £1500 in a year in voluntary taxes. If every left winger on the internet paid a pound, they would have received lot more. But hey, it's easy to act like one is so sanctimonious on the internet than actually making personal sacrifices for the cause. " But what's with the left this, the left that? It's damn tiresome. | |||
" I think it is weird that people ascribe a political leaning towards charity. Or take the piss out of a supposed political leaning. I bet there are philanthropists of left and right leanings who donate to charities. I don't mind people minding their own business, whether they donate to charity or not. But if someone is going to lecture on the internet about compassion and altruism, I would expect them to put their money where their mouth is. If all they want to do is to virtue signal in public while lacking any of those said virtues, I will point out their hypocrisy to them. Even if they want the government to do the work, if they really cared, they would have surely tried paying more voluntary tax? Last time I checked, the government got something around £1500 in a year in voluntary taxes. If every left winger on the internet paid a pound, they would have received lot more. But hey, it's easy to act like one is so sanctimonious on the internet than actually making personal sacrifices for the cause. People give to charity all the time, but the healthcare needs of a country are not something that should be left to charity. Do you overpay to HMRC? It seems like the sensible thing to do if you believe strongly that charitable donations are not the right way to go. I don’t believe that charitable donations are wrong, I just believe that the health of a nation is too important to be left to something like charity. I’m patriotic like that. I could be an edge lord on the internet, safe in the knowledge that the stuff I profess to want will never come about, and that I will always have a safety net, but that seems a bit, well, pathetic." I think you are grounded in the idea of the NHS being a service that can't be replaced. I agree in terms of its A&E capabilities and I would support that service being funded 100% of the time by the tax £. That is as far as I go, because the NHS is not performing and is not offering a service that commands the investment being made. I truly believe we need to have a better system and service offerings designed for the next 50 years, not hold onto something that is broken beyond repair. If you can step back from the idea of the NHS or nothing for one moment, would you agree or disagree in investments and support of an A&E only NHS, and private healthcare services for all other services, if that model proved to be more favourable to the health of the nation? | |||
| |||
" I think it is weird that people ascribe a political leaning towards charity. Or take the piss out of a supposed political leaning. I bet there are philanthropists of left and right leanings who donate to charities. I don't mind people minding their own business, whether they donate to charity or not. But if someone is going to lecture on the internet about compassion and altruism, I would expect them to put their money where their mouth is. If all they want to do is to virtue signal in public while lacking any of those said virtues, I will point out their hypocrisy to them. Even if they want the government to do the work, if they really cared, they would have surely tried paying more voluntary tax? Last time I checked, the government got something around £1500 in a year in voluntary taxes. If every left winger on the internet paid a pound, they would have received lot more. But hey, it's easy to act like one is so sanctimonious on the internet than actually making personal sacrifices for the cause. People give to charity all the time, but the healthcare needs of a country are not something that should be left to charity. Indeed. Just look at how much is raises in the UK for Children in Need, or Soccer Aid, or every time there is a disaster somewhere in the world. The notion that politics equates to any form of charity is simply pathetic! What's pathetic is acting like one is so compassionate about world problems while personally doing nothing about it. " Sure. Gonna hazard a guess here but I suspect my tax contributions and charity contributions are significant enough for me to feel like I am allowed to make a point | |||
| |||
" I think it is weird that people ascribe a political leaning towards charity. Or take the piss out of a supposed political leaning. I bet there are philanthropists of left and right leanings who donate to charities. I don't mind people minding their own business, whether they donate to charity or not. But if someone is going to lecture on the internet about compassion and altruism, I would expect them to put their money where their mouth is. If all they want to do is to virtue signal in public while lacking any of those said virtues, I will point out their hypocrisy to them. Even if they want the government to do the work, if they really cared, they would have surely tried paying more voluntary tax? Last time I checked, the government got something around £1500 in a year in voluntary taxes. If every left winger on the internet paid a pound, they would have received lot more. But hey, it's easy to act like one is so sanctimonious on the internet than actually making personal sacrifices for the cause. People give to charity all the time, but the healthcare needs of a country are not something that should be left to charity. Indeed. Just look at how much is raises in the UK for Children in Need, or Soccer Aid, or every time there is a disaster somewhere in the world. The notion that politics equates to any form of charity is simply pathetic! What's pathetic is acting like one is so compassionate about world problems while personally doing nothing about it. Sure. Gonna hazard a guess here but I suspect my tax contributions and charity contributions are significant enough for me to feel like I am allowed to make a point "Imagine what happens when everyone has the same idea and just makes a point on the internet without actually doing anything about it? | |||
" I think it is weird that people ascribe a political leaning towards charity. Or take the piss out of a supposed political leaning. I bet there are philanthropists of left and right leanings who donate to charities. I don't mind people minding their own business, whether they donate to charity or not. But if someone is going to lecture on the internet about compassion and altruism, I would expect them to put their money where their mouth is. If all they want to do is to virtue signal in public while lacking any of those said virtues, I will point out their hypocrisy to them. Even if they want the government to do the work, if they really cared, they would have surely tried paying more voluntary tax? Last time I checked, the government got something around £1500 in a year in voluntary taxes. If every left winger on the internet paid a pound, they would have received lot more. But hey, it's easy to act like one is so sanctimonious on the internet than actually making personal sacrifices for the cause. But what's with the left this, the left that? It's damn tiresome." | |||
" I think it is weird that people ascribe a political leaning towards charity. Or take the piss out of a supposed political leaning. I bet there are philanthropists of left and right leanings who donate to charities. I don't mind people minding their own business, whether they donate to charity or not. But if someone is going to lecture on the internet about compassion and altruism, I would expect them to put their money where their mouth is. If all they want to do is to virtue signal in public while lacking any of those said virtues, I will point out their hypocrisy to them. Even if they want the government to do the work, if they really cared, they would have surely tried paying more voluntary tax? Last time I checked, the government got something around £1500 in a year in voluntary taxes. If every left winger on the internet paid a pound, they would have received lot more. But hey, it's easy to act like one is so sanctimonious on the internet than actually making personal sacrifices for the cause. People give to charity all the time, but the healthcare needs of a country are not something that should be left to charity. Do you overpay to HMRC? It seems like the sensible thing to do if you believe strongly that charitable donations are not the right way to go. I don’t believe that charitable donations are wrong, I just believe that the health of a nation is too important to be left to something like charity. I’m patriotic like that. I could be an edge lord on the internet, safe in the knowledge that the stuff I profess to want will never come about, and that I will always have a safety net, but that seems a bit, well, pathetic. I think you are grounded in the idea of the NHS being a service that can't be replaced. I agree in terms of its A&E capabilities and I would support that service being funded 100% of the time by the tax £. That is as far as I go, because the NHS is not performing and is not offering a service that commands the investment being made. I truly believe we need to have a better system and service offerings designed for the next 50 years, not hold onto something that is broken beyond repair. If you can step back from the idea of the NHS or nothing for one moment, would you agree or disagree in investments and support of an A&E only NHS, and private healthcare services for all other services, if that model proved to be more favourable to the health of the nation?" I know you are not asking me but my answer to that is ONLY when we have resolved all my points in the list above such as pre-existing and hereditary conditions. Resolve and legislate for that and I may open my mind on the new model. | |||
" I think it is weird that people ascribe a political leaning towards charity. Or take the piss out of a supposed political leaning. I bet there are philanthropists of left and right leanings who donate to charities. I don't mind people minding their own business, whether they donate to charity or not. But if someone is going to lecture on the internet about compassion and altruism, I would expect them to put their money where their mouth is. If all they want to do is to virtue signal in public while lacking any of those said virtues, I will point out their hypocrisy to them. Even if they want the government to do the work, if they really cared, they would have surely tried paying more voluntary tax? Last time I checked, the government got something around £1500 in a year in voluntary taxes. If every left winger on the internet paid a pound, they would have received lot more. But hey, it's easy to act like one is so sanctimonious on the internet than actually making personal sacrifices for the cause. People give to charity all the time, but the healthcare needs of a country are not something that should be left to charity. Do you overpay to HMRC? It seems like the sensible thing to do if you believe strongly that charitable donations are not the right way to go. I don’t believe that charitable donations are wrong, I just believe that the health of a nation is too important to be left to something like charity. I’m patriotic like that. I could be an edge lord on the internet, safe in the knowledge that the stuff I profess to want will never come about, and that I will always have a safety net, but that seems a bit, well, pathetic. If you are patriotic and care about healthcare, why aren't you making overpayments to HMRC? " It’s odd that you equate patriotism to cash. Have you ever considered putting your money where your mouth is and living somewhere without a safety net, or would reality be a little too scary for you? | |||
"Last Labour government got waiting lists for life changing operations down by half (from 4 million to less than 2 million patients) between 2007 and 2009. We are currently sitting with 6 million patients on waiting lists. If you find yourself questioning if Labour are for the NHS and will protect it, just look at the parties track record and the size of the turd the tories dropped on our national health service " They took £13 billion of private sector money to do that, it only cost £55 billion to pay back and it played a significant part in the demise of NHS funding. The stats do look good though | |||
" I think it is weird that people ascribe a political leaning towards charity. Or take the piss out of a supposed political leaning. I bet there are philanthropists of left and right leanings who donate to charities. I don't mind people minding their own business, whether they donate to charity or not. But if someone is going to lecture on the internet about compassion and altruism, I would expect them to put their money where their mouth is. If all they want to do is to virtue signal in public while lacking any of those said virtues, I will point out their hypocrisy to them. Even if they want the government to do the work, if they really cared, they would have surely tried paying more voluntary tax? Last time I checked, the government got something around £1500 in a year in voluntary taxes. If every left winger on the internet paid a pound, they would have received lot more. But hey, it's easy to act like one is so sanctimonious on the internet than actually making personal sacrifices for the cause. People give to charity all the time, but the healthcare needs of a country are not something that should be left to charity. Indeed. Just look at how much is raises in the UK for Children in Need, or Soccer Aid, or every time there is a disaster somewhere in the world. The notion that politics equates to any form of charity is simply pathetic! What's pathetic is acting like one is so compassionate about world problems while personally doing nothing about it. Sure. Gonna hazard a guess here but I suspect my tax contributions and charity contributions are significant enough for me to feel like I am allowed to make a point
Imagine what happens when everyone has the same idea and just makes a point on the internet without actually doing anything about it?"I could reverse that argument but it is all getting rather tedious. To seriously advocate that the healthcare of our nation, the 6th richest on the planet, in the 21st Century, should be provided by charity is complete bollocks in my eyes. I am up for a sensible discussion on how to tackle challenges in the NHS but reverting to the Victorian era is utter nonsense in my view | |||
| |||
"My ten pence worth . The system is broken, but as the core backbone to the country it should be de politicised. By this I mean if all political parties agree we want healthcare free at source then set up a joint government department to sort the issues in good positive faith. IT - bit of Forth Road Bridge painting there. If you’re being paid ongoing as an IT provider by inexperience or incompetent procurement where is the incentive to finish the job and to reach just basic maintenance levels? How have other countries done it? Senior management needs culling . There are far too many Directors in each trust and far too many highly paid senior managers. A simplified structure is cheaper and easier to manage overall. Maybe scrap the trust model to a more larger regional integrated set up. Or perhaps reduce the model to local services to all but serious care need. Either way reduce the overhead not the service. Pay doctors nurses and ancillary workers a far better wage to attract and keep staff. Use the savings above. Employ flexible working when it’s needed to reduce outside contractors. Cut back on private practice time for consultants during the day. Same with dentists. Interesting point.. Cambridge university found that hospitals which used outside cleaning contractors were more likely to have a poorer standard of cleanliness than those who had in house cleaners. Recruit the best Procurement Managers in industry and give them teeth . I have a friend who supplies equipment to the NHS in the South East. He dictates the discussion on contract renewal which I find appalling. Not saying I’m right and just my thoughts. " A lot of sense in this | |||
" I think it is weird that people ascribe a political leaning towards charity. Or take the piss out of a supposed political leaning. I bet there are philanthropists of left and right leanings who donate to charities. I don't mind people minding their own business, whether they donate to charity or not. But if someone is going to lecture on the internet about compassion and altruism, I would expect them to put their money where their mouth is. If all they want to do is to virtue signal in public while lacking any of those said virtues, I will point out their hypocrisy to them. Even if they want the government to do the work, if they really cared, they would have surely tried paying more voluntary tax? Last time I checked, the government got something around £1500 in a year in voluntary taxes. If every left winger on the internet paid a pound, they would have received lot more. But hey, it's easy to act like one is so sanctimonious on the internet than actually making personal sacrifices for the cause. People give to charity all the time, but the healthcare needs of a country are not something that should be left to charity. Do you overpay to HMRC? It seems like the sensible thing to do if you believe strongly that charitable donations are not the right way to go. I don’t believe that charitable donations are wrong, I just believe that the health of a nation is too important to be left to something like charity. I’m patriotic like that. I could be an edge lord on the internet, safe in the knowledge that the stuff I profess to want will never come about, and that I will always have a safety net, but that seems a bit, well, pathetic. If you are patriotic and care about healthcare, why aren't you making overpayments to HMRC? It’s odd that you equate patriotism to cash. Have you ever considered putting your money where your mouth is and living somewhere without a safety net, or would reality be a little too scary for you?" NHS needs more funding. You care about healthcare and the country. Pretty sure giving cash to HMRC is the right course of action here. Or do you believe in clapping hands from the balcony? I have lived in three countries so far. Only here, I have been forced to depend too much on the NHS. In the other countries, I didn't have to. | |||
"My ten pence worth . The system is broken, but as the core backbone to the country it should be de politicised. By this I mean if all political parties agree we want healthcare free at source then set up a joint government department to sort the issues in good positive faith. IT - bit of Forth Road Bridge painting there. If you’re being paid ongoing as an IT provider by inexperience or incompetent procurement where is the incentive to finish the job and to reach just basic maintenance levels? How have other countries done it? Senior management needs culling . There are far too many Directors in each trust and far too many highly paid senior managers. A simplified structure is cheaper and easier to manage overall. Maybe scrap the trust model to a more larger regional integrated set up. Or perhaps reduce the model to local services to all but serious care need. Either way reduce the overhead not the service. Pay doctors nurses and ancillary workers a far better wage to attract and keep staff. Use the savings above. Employ flexible working when it’s needed to reduce outside contractors. Cut back on private practice time for consultants during the day. Same with dentists. Interesting point.. Cambridge university found that hospitals which used outside cleaning contractors were more likely to have a poorer standard of cleanliness than those who had in house cleaners. Recruit the best Procurement Managers in industry and give them teeth . I have a friend who supplies equipment to the NHS in the South East. He dictates the discussion on contract renewal which I find appalling. Not saying I’m right and just my thoughts. A lot of sense in this "Seconded | |||
" I think it is weird that people ascribe a political leaning towards charity. Or take the piss out of a supposed political leaning. I bet there are philanthropists of left and right leanings who donate to charities. I don't mind people minding their own business, whether they donate to charity or not. But if someone is going to lecture on the internet about compassion and altruism, I would expect them to put their money where their mouth is. If all they want to do is to virtue signal in public while lacking any of those said virtues, I will point out their hypocrisy to them. Even if they want the government to do the work, if they really cared, they would have surely tried paying more voluntary tax? Last time I checked, the government got something around £1500 in a year in voluntary taxes. If every left winger on the internet paid a pound, they would have received lot more. But hey, it's easy to act like one is so sanctimonious on the internet than actually making personal sacrifices for the cause. People give to charity all the time, but the healthcare needs of a country are not something that should be left to charity. Do you overpay to HMRC? It seems like the sensible thing to do if you believe strongly that charitable donations are not the right way to go. I don’t believe that charitable donations are wrong, I just believe that the health of a nation is too important to be left to something like charity. I’m patriotic like that. I could be an edge lord on the internet, safe in the knowledge that the stuff I profess to want will never come about, and that I will always have a safety net, but that seems a bit, well, pathetic. If you are patriotic and care about healthcare, why aren't you making overpayments to HMRC? It’s odd that you equate patriotism to cash. Have you ever considered putting your money where your mouth is and living somewhere without a safety net, or would reality be a little too scary for you? NHS needs more funding. You care about healthcare and the country. Pretty sure giving cash to HMRC is the right course of action here. Or do you believe in clapping hands from the balcony? I have lived in three countries so far. Only here, I have been forced to depend too much on the NHS. In the other countries, I didn't have to. " What healthcare did you need in the other two countries? How much did that cost you? | |||
" I think it is weird that people ascribe a political leaning towards charity. Or take the piss out of a supposed political leaning. I bet there are philanthropists of left and right leanings who donate to charities. I don't mind people minding their own business, whether they donate to charity or not. But if someone is going to lecture on the internet about compassion and altruism, I would expect them to put their money where their mouth is. If all they want to do is to virtue signal in public while lacking any of those said virtues, I will point out their hypocrisy to them. Even if they want the government to do the work, if they really cared, they would have surely tried paying more voluntary tax? Last time I checked, the government got something around £1500 in a year in voluntary taxes. If every left winger on the internet paid a pound, they would have received lot more. But hey, it's easy to act like one is so sanctimonious on the internet than actually making personal sacrifices for the cause. People give to charity all the time, but the healthcare needs of a country are not something that should be left to charity. Indeed. Just look at how much is raises in the UK for Children in Need, or Soccer Aid, or every time there is a disaster somewhere in the world. The notion that politics equates to any form of charity is simply pathetic! What's pathetic is acting like one is so compassionate about world problems while personally doing nothing about it. Sure. Gonna hazard a guess here but I suspect my tax contributions and charity contributions are significant enough for me to feel like I am allowed to make a point
Imagine what happens when everyone has the same idea and just makes a point on the internet without actually doing anything about it?
I could reverse that argument but it is all getting rather tedious. To seriously advocate that the healthcare of our nation, the 6th richest on the planet, in the 21st Century, should be provided by charity is complete bollocks in my eyes. I am up for a sensible discussion on how to tackle challenges in the NHS but reverting to the Victorian era is utter nonsense in my view "UK is not the 6th richest country on the planet. I don't know where you get that idea from. Government run healthcare is also a charity only run in the most inefficient way possible and by forcing money out of people instead of people willingly paying into it. And I don't see how charity run hospitals are somehow not so worthy of a rich country. If anything, it shows that the country is a companionate country. | |||
" I think it is weird that people ascribe a political leaning towards charity. Or take the piss out of a supposed political leaning. I bet there are philanthropists of left and right leanings who donate to charities. I don't mind people minding their own business, whether they donate to charity or not. But if someone is going to lecture on the internet about compassion and altruism, I would expect them to put their money where their mouth is. If all they want to do is to virtue signal in public while lacking any of those said virtues, I will point out their hypocrisy to them. Even if they want the government to do the work, if they really cared, they would have surely tried paying more voluntary tax? Last time I checked, the government got something around £1500 in a year in voluntary taxes. If every left winger on the internet paid a pound, they would have received lot more. But hey, it's easy to act like one is so sanctimonious on the internet than actually making personal sacrifices for the cause. People give to charity all the time, but the healthcare needs of a country are not something that should be left to charity. Do you overpay to HMRC? It seems like the sensible thing to do if you believe strongly that charitable donations are not the right way to go. I don’t believe that charitable donations are wrong, I just believe that the health of a nation is too important to be left to something like charity. I’m patriotic like that. I could be an edge lord on the internet, safe in the knowledge that the stuff I profess to want will never come about, and that I will always have a safety net, but that seems a bit, well, pathetic. If you are patriotic and care about healthcare, why aren't you making overpayments to HMRC? It’s odd that you equate patriotism to cash. Have you ever considered putting your money where your mouth is and living somewhere without a safety net, or would reality be a little too scary for you? NHS needs more funding. You care about healthcare and the country. Pretty sure giving cash to HMRC is the right course of action here. Or do you believe in clapping hands from the balcony? I have lived in three countries so far. Only here, I have been forced to depend too much on the NHS. In the other countries, I didn't have to. " Then why put up with what verges on communism when you could live your life free of the burden? You could be out there practicing what you preach, yet here you are… | |||
" I think it is weird that people ascribe a political leaning towards charity. Or take the piss out of a supposed political leaning. I bet there are philanthropists of left and right leanings who donate to charities. I don't mind people minding their own business, whether they donate to charity or not. But if someone is going to lecture on the internet about compassion and altruism, I would expect them to put their money where their mouth is. If all they want to do is to virtue signal in public while lacking any of those said virtues, I will point out their hypocrisy to them. Even if they want the government to do the work, if they really cared, they would have surely tried paying more voluntary tax? Last time I checked, the government got something around £1500 in a year in voluntary taxes. If every left winger on the internet paid a pound, they would have received lot more. But hey, it's easy to act like one is so sanctimonious on the internet than actually making personal sacrifices for the cause. People give to charity all the time, but the healthcare needs of a country are not something that should be left to charity. Indeed. Just look at how much is raises in the UK for Children in Need, or Soccer Aid, or every time there is a disaster somewhere in the world. The notion that politics equates to any form of charity is simply pathetic! What's pathetic is acting like one is so compassionate about world problems while personally doing nothing about it. Sure. Gonna hazard a guess here but I suspect my tax contributions and charity contributions are significant enough for me to feel like I am allowed to make a point
Imagine what happens when everyone has the same idea and just makes a point on the internet without actually doing anything about it?
I could reverse that argument but it is all getting rather tedious. To seriously advocate that the healthcare of our nation, the 6th richest on the planet, in the 21st Century, should be provided by charity is complete bollocks in my eyes. I am up for a sensible discussion on how to tackle challenges in the NHS but reverting to the Victorian era is utter nonsense in my view
UK is not the 6th richest country on the planet. I don't know where you get that idea from.
Government run healthcare is also a charity only run in the most inefficient way possible and by forcing money out of people instead of people willingly paying into it. And I don't see how charity run hospitals are somehow not so worthy of a rich country. If anything, it shows that the country is a companionate country."You may need to do some research… “The economy of the United Kingdom is a highly developed social market economy. It is the sixth-largest national economy in the world measured by nominal gross domestic product (GDP), ninth-largest by purchasing power parity (PPP), and twenty-first by nominal GDP per capita, constituting 3.1% of nominal world GDP.” | |||
" I think it is weird that people ascribe a political leaning towards charity. Or take the piss out of a supposed political leaning. I bet there are philanthropists of left and right leanings who donate to charities. I don't mind people minding their own business, whether they donate to charity or not. But if someone is going to lecture on the internet about compassion and altruism, I would expect them to put their money where their mouth is. If all they want to do is to virtue signal in public while lacking any of those said virtues, I will point out their hypocrisy to them. Even if they want the government to do the work, if they really cared, they would have surely tried paying more voluntary tax? Last time I checked, the government got something around £1500 in a year in voluntary taxes. If every left winger on the internet paid a pound, they would have received lot more. But hey, it's easy to act like one is so sanctimonious on the internet than actually making personal sacrifices for the cause. People give to charity all the time, but the healthcare needs of a country are not something that should be left to charity. Do you overpay to HMRC? It seems like the sensible thing to do if you believe strongly that charitable donations are not the right way to go. I don’t believe that charitable donations are wrong, I just believe that the health of a nation is too important to be left to something like charity. I’m patriotic like that. I could be an edge lord on the internet, safe in the knowledge that the stuff I profess to want will never come about, and that I will always have a safety net, but that seems a bit, well, pathetic. If you are patriotic and care about healthcare, why aren't you making overpayments to HMRC? It’s odd that you equate patriotism to cash. Have you ever considered putting your money where your mouth is and living somewhere without a safety net, or would reality be a little too scary for you? NHS needs more funding. You care about healthcare and the country. Pretty sure giving cash to HMRC is the right course of action here. Or do you believe in clapping hands from the balcony? I have lived in three countries so far. Only here, I have been forced to depend too much on the NHS. In the other countries, I didn't have to. What healthcare did you need in the other two countries? How much did that cost you?" In India, there is a thriving private sector. Most middle class and lower middle class(where I am from) do not use government healthcare even though it is free. We have doctors providing services for cheap cost and also high cost. Rich people go to the high cost doctors and poor and middle class doctors go to the cheaper doctors. There are problems because India is a poor country in general. But given the limited wealth, they operate much more efficiently. In the US, I was working and had my insurance covered by my employer. | |||
" I think it is weird that people ascribe a political leaning towards charity. Or take the piss out of a supposed political leaning. I bet there are philanthropists of left and right leanings who donate to charities. I don't mind people minding their own business, whether they donate to charity or not. But if someone is going to lecture on the internet about compassion and altruism, I would expect them to put their money where their mouth is. If all they want to do is to virtue signal in public while lacking any of those said virtues, I will point out their hypocrisy to them. Even if they want the government to do the work, if they really cared, they would have surely tried paying more voluntary tax? Last time I checked, the government got something around £1500 in a year in voluntary taxes. If every left winger on the internet paid a pound, they would have received lot more. But hey, it's easy to act like one is so sanctimonious on the internet than actually making personal sacrifices for the cause. People give to charity all the time, but the healthcare needs of a country are not something that should be left to charity. Indeed. Just look at how much is raises in the UK for Children in Need, or Soccer Aid, or every time there is a disaster somewhere in the world. The notion that politics equates to any form of charity is simply pathetic! What's pathetic is acting like one is so compassionate about world problems while personally doing nothing about it. Sure. Gonna hazard a guess here but I suspect my tax contributions and charity contributions are significant enough for me to feel like I am allowed to make a point
Imagine what happens when everyone has the same idea and just makes a point on the internet without actually doing anything about it?
I could reverse that argument but it is all getting rather tedious. To seriously advocate that the healthcare of our nation, the 6th richest on the planet, in the 21st Century, should be provided by charity is complete bollocks in my eyes. I am up for a sensible discussion on how to tackle challenges in the NHS but reverting to the Victorian era is utter nonsense in my view
UK is not the 6th richest country on the planet. I don't know where you get that idea from.
Government run healthcare is also a charity only run in the most inefficient way possible and by forcing money out of people instead of people willingly paying into it. And I don't see how charity run hospitals are somehow not so worthy of a rich country. If anything, it shows that the country is a companionate country.
You may need to do some research…
“The economy of the United Kingdom is a highly developed social market economy. It is the sixth-largest national economy in the world measured by nominal gross domestic product (GDP), ninth-largest by purchasing power parity (PPP), and twenty-first by nominal GDP per capita, constituting 3.1% of nominal world GDP.”"You know... By that logic India is richer than UK right? | |||
" I think it is weird that people ascribe a political leaning towards charity. Or take the piss out of a supposed political leaning. I bet there are philanthropists of left and right leanings who donate to charities. I don't mind people minding their own business, whether they donate to charity or not. But if someone is going to lecture on the internet about compassion and altruism, I would expect them to put their money where their mouth is. If all they want to do is to virtue signal in public while lacking any of those said virtues, I will point out their hypocrisy to them. Even if they want the government to do the work, if they really cared, they would have surely tried paying more voluntary tax? Last time I checked, the government got something around £1500 in a year in voluntary taxes. If every left winger on the internet paid a pound, they would have received lot more. But hey, it's easy to act like one is so sanctimonious on the internet than actually making personal sacrifices for the cause. People give to charity all the time, but the healthcare needs of a country are not something that should be left to charity. Do you overpay to HMRC? It seems like the sensible thing to do if you believe strongly that charitable donations are not the right way to go. I don’t believe that charitable donations are wrong, I just believe that the health of a nation is too important to be left to something like charity. I’m patriotic like that. I could be an edge lord on the internet, safe in the knowledge that the stuff I profess to want will never come about, and that I will always have a safety net, but that seems a bit, well, pathetic. If you are patriotic and care about healthcare, why aren't you making overpayments to HMRC? It’s odd that you equate patriotism to cash. Have you ever considered putting your money where your mouth is and living somewhere without a safety net, or would reality be a little too scary for you? NHS needs more funding. You care about healthcare and the country. Pretty sure giving cash to HMRC is the right course of action here. Or do you believe in clapping hands from the balcony? I have lived in three countries so far. Only here, I have been forced to depend too much on the NHS. In the other countries, I didn't have to. Then why put up with what verges on communism when you could live your life free of the burden? You could be out there practicing what you preach, yet here you are…" For one thing, I am healthy enough that I never had to use healthcare here other than for getting covid vaccines. I know of two Indian couples who went back to India because they developed chronic issues and the healthcare here was terrible. If shit goes south on my health, I will happily go back to India. One of the main reasons why I did not apply for citizenship even though I am eligible for it. | |||
" I think it is weird that people ascribe a political leaning towards charity. Or take the piss out of a supposed political leaning. I bet there are philanthropists of left and right leanings who donate to charities. I don't mind people minding their own business, whether they donate to charity or not. But if someone is going to lecture on the internet about compassion and altruism, I would expect them to put their money where their mouth is. If all they want to do is to virtue signal in public while lacking any of those said virtues, I will point out their hypocrisy to them. Even if they want the government to do the work, if they really cared, they would have surely tried paying more voluntary tax? Last time I checked, the government got something around £1500 in a year in voluntary taxes. If every left winger on the internet paid a pound, they would have received lot more. But hey, it's easy to act like one is so sanctimonious on the internet than actually making personal sacrifices for the cause. People give to charity all the time, but the healthcare needs of a country are not something that should be left to charity. Do you overpay to HMRC? It seems like the sensible thing to do if you believe strongly that charitable donations are not the right way to go. I don’t believe that charitable donations are wrong, I just believe that the health of a nation is too important to be left to something like charity. I’m patriotic like that. I could be an edge lord on the internet, safe in the knowledge that the stuff I profess to want will never come about, and that I will always have a safety net, but that seems a bit, well, pathetic. I think you are grounded in the idea of the NHS being a service that can't be replaced. I agree in terms of its A&E capabilities and I would support that service being funded 100% of the time by the tax £. That is as far as I go, because the NHS is not performing and is not offering a service that commands the investment being made. I truly believe we need to have a better system and service offerings designed for the next 50 years, not hold onto something that is broken beyond repair. If you can step back from the idea of the NHS or nothing for one moment, would you agree or disagree in investments and support of an A&E only NHS, and private healthcare services for all other services, if that model proved to be more favourable to the health of the nation?" Okay… hold that thought Now… let’s put an actual case to that thought Unfortunately one of the most common killers in the uk Breast cancer….. So… still maintaining the same stance? Honestly interesting | |||
" I think it is weird that people ascribe a political leaning towards charity. Or take the piss out of a supposed political leaning. I bet there are philanthropists of left and right leanings who donate to charities. I don't mind people minding their own business, whether they donate to charity or not. But if someone is going to lecture on the internet about compassion and altruism, I would expect them to put their money where their mouth is. If all they want to do is to virtue signal in public while lacking any of those said virtues, I will point out their hypocrisy to them. Even if they want the government to do the work, if they really cared, they would have surely tried paying more voluntary tax? Last time I checked, the government got something around £1500 in a year in voluntary taxes. If every left winger on the internet paid a pound, they would have received lot more. But hey, it's easy to act like one is so sanctimonious on the internet than actually making personal sacrifices for the cause. People give to charity all the time, but the healthcare needs of a country are not something that should be left to charity. Do you overpay to HMRC? It seems like the sensible thing to do if you believe strongly that charitable donations are not the right way to go. I don’t believe that charitable donations are wrong, I just believe that the health of a nation is too important to be left to something like charity. I’m patriotic like that. I could be an edge lord on the internet, safe in the knowledge that the stuff I profess to want will never come about, and that I will always have a safety net, but that seems a bit, well, pathetic. I think you are grounded in the idea of the NHS being a service that can't be replaced. I agree in terms of its A&E capabilities and I would support that service being funded 100% of the time by the tax £. That is as far as I go, because the NHS is not performing and is not offering a service that commands the investment being made. I truly believe we need to have a better system and service offerings designed for the next 50 years, not hold onto something that is broken beyond repair. If you can step back from the idea of the NHS or nothing for one moment, would you agree or disagree in investments and support of an A&E only NHS, and private healthcare services for all other services, if that model proved to be more favourable to the health of the nation? Okay… hold that thought Now… let’s put an actual case to that thought Unfortunately one of the most common killers in the uk Breast cancer….. So… still maintaining the same stance? Honestly interesting " Yes, and this example is good. I would expect the standard of health service support to increase dramatically if it is funded and paid for by the user of the service, and this going to sound cold... if an insurance company needs to pay out, they will insist on the best levels of treatment and care to reduce their costs. We are nowhere near that place today for the majority of the country, we need to be there, driving best practices, short turnaround times and assisting those who can't afford tier 1 services, such as they do today with social housing builds. As an example for every 100 fully paid private healthcare members they need to conduct X number of procedures at NHS prices. I truly believe we need a better service than what we have, and that means to think wider than what we have. | |||
" I think it is weird that people ascribe a political leaning towards charity. Or take the piss out of a supposed political leaning. I bet there are philanthropists of left and right leanings who donate to charities. I don't mind people minding their own business, whether they donate to charity or not. But if someone is going to lecture on the internet about compassion and altruism, I would expect them to put their money where their mouth is. If all they want to do is to virtue signal in public while lacking any of those said virtues, I will point out their hypocrisy to them. Even if they want the government to do the work, if they really cared, they would have surely tried paying more voluntary tax? Last time I checked, the government got something around £1500 in a year in voluntary taxes. If every left winger on the internet paid a pound, they would have received lot more. But hey, it's easy to act like one is so sanctimonious on the internet than actually making personal sacrifices for the cause. People give to charity all the time, but the healthcare needs of a country are not something that should be left to charity. Indeed. Just look at how much is raises in the UK for Children in Need, or Soccer Aid, or every time there is a disaster somewhere in the world. The notion that politics equates to any form of charity is simply pathetic! What's pathetic is acting like one is so compassionate about world problems while personally doing nothing about it. Sure. Gonna hazard a guess here but I suspect my tax contributions and charity contributions are significant enough for me to feel like I am allowed to make a point
Imagine what happens when everyone has the same idea and just makes a point on the internet without actually doing anything about it?
I could reverse that argument but it is all getting rather tedious. To seriously advocate that the healthcare of our nation, the 6th richest on the planet, in the 21st Century, should be provided by charity is complete bollocks in my eyes. I am up for a sensible discussion on how to tackle challenges in the NHS but reverting to the Victorian era is utter nonsense in my view
UK is not the 6th richest country on the planet. I don't know where you get that idea from.
Government run healthcare is also a charity only run in the most inefficient way possible and by forcing money out of people instead of people willingly paying into it. And I don't see how charity run hospitals are somehow not so worthy of a rich country. If anything, it shows that the country is a companionate country.
You may need to do some research…
“The economy of the United Kingdom is a highly developed social market economy. It is the sixth-largest national economy in the world measured by nominal gross domestic product (GDP), ninth-largest by purchasing power parity (PPP), and twenty-first by nominal GDP per capita, constituting 3.1% of nominal world GDP.”
You know... By that logic India is richer than UK right?"It is. Maybe you were not paying attention but India recently passed the UK into 5th place. | |||
" I think it is weird that people ascribe a political leaning towards charity. Or take the piss out of a supposed political leaning. I bet there are philanthropists of left and right leanings who donate to charities. I don't mind people minding their own business, whether they donate to charity or not. But if someone is going to lecture on the internet about compassion and altruism, I would expect them to put their money where their mouth is. If all they want to do is to virtue signal in public while lacking any of those said virtues, I will point out their hypocrisy to them. Even if they want the government to do the work, if they really cared, they would have surely tried paying more voluntary tax? Last time I checked, the government got something around £1500 in a year in voluntary taxes. If every left winger on the internet paid a pound, they would have received lot more. But hey, it's easy to act like one is so sanctimonious on the internet than actually making personal sacrifices for the cause. People give to charity all the time, but the healthcare needs of a country are not something that should be left to charity. Do you overpay to HMRC? It seems like the sensible thing to do if you believe strongly that charitable donations are not the right way to go. I don’t believe that charitable donations are wrong, I just believe that the health of a nation is too important to be left to something like charity. I’m patriotic like that. I could be an edge lord on the internet, safe in the knowledge that the stuff I profess to want will never come about, and that I will always have a safety net, but that seems a bit, well, pathetic. If you are patriotic and care about healthcare, why aren't you making overpayments to HMRC? It’s odd that you equate patriotism to cash. Have you ever considered putting your money where your mouth is and living somewhere without a safety net, or would reality be a little too scary for you? NHS needs more funding. You care about healthcare and the country. Pretty sure giving cash to HMRC is the right course of action here. Or do you believe in clapping hands from the balcony? I have lived in three countries so far. Only here, I have been forced to depend too much on the NHS. In the other countries, I didn't have to. Then why put up with what verges on communism when you could live your life free of the burden? You could be out there practicing what you preach, yet here you are… For one thing, I am healthy enough that I never had to use healthcare here other than for getting covid vaccines. I know of two Indian couples who went back to India because they developed chronic issues and the healthcare here was terrible. If shit goes south on my health, I will happily go back to India. One of the main reasons why I did not apply for citizenship even though I am eligible for it." So you’re happy to live with the knowledge you have the safety net of the NHS while calling it communism, but you don’t have the courage to live somewhere without that safety net. Glad we cleared that up. | |||
" I think it is weird that people ascribe a political leaning towards charity. Or take the piss out of a supposed political leaning. I bet there are philanthropists of left and right leanings who donate to charities. I don't mind people minding their own business, whether they donate to charity or not. But if someone is going to lecture on the internet about compassion and altruism, I would expect them to put their money where their mouth is. If all they want to do is to virtue signal in public while lacking any of those said virtues, I will point out their hypocrisy to them. Even if they want the government to do the work, if they really cared, they would have surely tried paying more voluntary tax? Last time I checked, the government got something around £1500 in a year in voluntary taxes. If every left winger on the internet paid a pound, they would have received lot more. But hey, it's easy to act like one is so sanctimonious on the internet than actually making personal sacrifices for the cause. People give to charity all the time, but the healthcare needs of a country are not something that should be left to charity. Do you overpay to HMRC? It seems like the sensible thing to do if you believe strongly that charitable donations are not the right way to go. I don’t believe that charitable donations are wrong, I just believe that the health of a nation is too important to be left to something like charity. I’m patriotic like that. I could be an edge lord on the internet, safe in the knowledge that the stuff I profess to want will never come about, and that I will always have a safety net, but that seems a bit, well, pathetic. If you are patriotic and care about healthcare, why aren't you making overpayments to HMRC? It’s odd that you equate patriotism to cash. Have you ever considered putting your money where your mouth is and living somewhere without a safety net, or would reality be a little too scary for you? NHS needs more funding. You care about healthcare and the country. Pretty sure giving cash to HMRC is the right course of action here. Or do you believe in clapping hands from the balcony? I have lived in three countries so far. Only here, I have been forced to depend too much on the NHS. In the other countries, I didn't have to. What healthcare did you need in the other two countries? How much did that cost you? In India, there is a thriving private sector. Most middle class and lower middle class(where I am from) do not use government healthcare even though it is free. We have doctors providing services for cheap cost and also high cost. Rich people go to the high cost doctors and poor and middle class doctors go to the cheaper doctors. There are problems because India is a poor country in general. But given the limited wealth, they operate much more efficiently. In the US, I was working and had my insurance covered by my employer." Based on that I am surprised you cannot see that your argument is now a moot point! BTW to help the NHS I would require that all migrants into the UK (not refugees, those on work or student visas) MUST have full health insurance cover (which could be from their employer) for the duration of their visa and if extended/renewed. | |||
" I think it is weird that people ascribe a political leaning towards charity. Or take the piss out of a supposed political leaning. I bet there are philanthropists of left and right leanings who donate to charities. I don't mind people minding their own business, whether they donate to charity or not. But if someone is going to lecture on the internet about compassion and altruism, I would expect them to put their money where their mouth is. If all they want to do is to virtue signal in public while lacking any of those said virtues, I will point out their hypocrisy to them. Even if they want the government to do the work, if they really cared, they would have surely tried paying more voluntary tax? Last time I checked, the government got something around £1500 in a year in voluntary taxes. If every left winger on the internet paid a pound, they would have received lot more. But hey, it's easy to act like one is so sanctimonious on the internet than actually making personal sacrifices for the cause. People give to charity all the time, but the healthcare needs of a country are not something that should be left to charity. Do you overpay to HMRC? It seems like the sensible thing to do if you believe strongly that charitable donations are not the right way to go. I don’t believe that charitable donations are wrong, I just believe that the health of a nation is too important to be left to something like charity. I’m patriotic like that. I could be an edge lord on the internet, safe in the knowledge that the stuff I profess to want will never come about, and that I will always have a safety net, but that seems a bit, well, pathetic. If you are patriotic and care about healthcare, why aren't you making overpayments to HMRC? It’s odd that you equate patriotism to cash. Have you ever considered putting your money where your mouth is and living somewhere without a safety net, or would reality be a little too scary for you? NHS needs more funding. You care about healthcare and the country. Pretty sure giving cash to HMRC is the right course of action here. Or do you believe in clapping hands from the balcony? I have lived in three countries so far. Only here, I have been forced to depend too much on the NHS. In the other countries, I didn't have to. Then why put up with what verges on communism when you could live your life free of the burden? You could be out there practicing what you preach, yet here you are… For one thing, I am healthy enough that I never had to use healthcare here other than for getting covid vaccines. I know of two Indian couples who went back to India because they developed chronic issues and the healthcare here was terrible. If shit goes south on my health, I will happily go back to India. One of the main reasons why I did not apply for citizenship even though I am eligible for it. So you’re happy to live with the knowledge you have the safety net of the NHS while calling it communism, but you don’t have the courage to live somewhere without that safety net. Glad we cleared that up." Where did I ever say I am happy I have the safety net of NHS? Did you even read my message?
By the way, I laud your hard work trying to distract people away from the question directed at you. | |||
" I think it is weird that people ascribe a political leaning towards charity. Or take the piss out of a supposed political leaning. I bet there are philanthropists of left and right leanings who donate to charities. I don't mind people minding their own business, whether they donate to charity or not. But if someone is going to lecture on the internet about compassion and altruism, I would expect them to put their money where their mouth is. If all they want to do is to virtue signal in public while lacking any of those said virtues, I will point out their hypocrisy to them. Even if they want the government to do the work, if they really cared, they would have surely tried paying more voluntary tax? Last time I checked, the government got something around £1500 in a year in voluntary taxes. If every left winger on the internet paid a pound, they would have received lot more. But hey, it's easy to act like one is so sanctimonious on the internet than actually making personal sacrifices for the cause. People give to charity all the time, but the healthcare needs of a country are not something that should be left to charity. Indeed. Just look at how much is raises in the UK for Children in Need, or Soccer Aid, or every time there is a disaster somewhere in the world. The notion that politics equates to any form of charity is simply pathetic! What's pathetic is acting like one is so compassionate about world problems while personally doing nothing about it. Sure. Gonna hazard a guess here but I suspect my tax contributions and charity contributions are significant enough for me to feel like I am allowed to make a point
Imagine what happens when everyone has the same idea and just makes a point on the internet without actually doing anything about it?
I could reverse that argument but it is all getting rather tedious. To seriously advocate that the healthcare of our nation, the 6th richest on the planet, in the 21st Century, should be provided by charity is complete bollocks in my eyes. I am up for a sensible discussion on how to tackle challenges in the NHS but reverting to the Victorian era is utter nonsense in my view
UK is not the 6th richest country on the planet. I don't know where you get that idea from.
Government run healthcare is also a charity only run in the most inefficient way possible and by forcing money out of people instead of people willingly paying into it. And I don't see how charity run hospitals are somehow not so worthy of a rich country. If anything, it shows that the country is a companionate country.
You may need to do some research…
“The economy of the United Kingdom is a highly developed social market economy. It is the sixth-largest national economy in the world measured by nominal gross domestic product (GDP), ninth-largest by purchasing power parity (PPP), and twenty-first by nominal GDP per capita, constituting 3.1% of nominal world GDP.”
You know... By that logic India is richer than UK right?
It is. Maybe you were not paying attention but India recently passed the UK into 5th place."Yes, my point is that it doesn't make India richer than UK. You have to look at GDP per capita for any reasonable comparison. UK goes down to 25th rank in that ranking. So it's not as rich as you think. | |||
" I think it is weird that people ascribe a political leaning towards charity. Or take the piss out of a supposed political leaning. I bet there are philanthropists of left and right leanings who donate to charities. I don't mind people minding their own business, whether they donate to charity or not. But if someone is going to lecture on the internet about compassion and altruism, I would expect them to put their money where their mouth is. If all they want to do is to virtue signal in public while lacking any of those said virtues, I will point out their hypocrisy to them. Even if they want the government to do the work, if they really cared, they would have surely tried paying more voluntary tax? Last time I checked, the government got something around £1500 in a year in voluntary taxes. If every left winger on the internet paid a pound, they would have received lot more. But hey, it's easy to act like one is so sanctimonious on the internet than actually making personal sacrifices for the cause. People give to charity all the time, but the healthcare needs of a country are not something that should be left to charity. Indeed. Just look at how much is raises in the UK for Children in Need, or Soccer Aid, or every time there is a disaster somewhere in the world. The notion that politics equates to any form of charity is simply pathetic! What's pathetic is acting like one is so compassionate about world problems while personally doing nothing about it. Sure. Gonna hazard a guess here but I suspect my tax contributions and charity contributions are significant enough for me to feel like I am allowed to make a point
Imagine what happens when everyone has the same idea and just makes a point on the internet without actually doing anything about it?
I could reverse that argument but it is all getting rather tedious. To seriously advocate that the healthcare of our nation, the 6th richest on the planet, in the 21st Century, should be provided by charity is complete bollocks in my eyes. I am up for a sensible discussion on how to tackle challenges in the NHS but reverting to the Victorian era is utter nonsense in my view
UK is not the 6th richest country on the planet. I don't know where you get that idea from.
Government run healthcare is also a charity only run in the most inefficient way possible and by forcing money out of people instead of people willingly paying into it. And I don't see how charity run hospitals are somehow not so worthy of a rich country. If anything, it shows that the country is a companionate country.
You may need to do some research…
“The economy of the United Kingdom is a highly developed social market economy. It is the sixth-largest national economy in the world measured by nominal gross domestic product (GDP), ninth-largest by purchasing power parity (PPP), and twenty-first by nominal GDP per capita, constituting 3.1% of nominal world GDP.”
You know... By that logic India is richer than UK right?
It is. Maybe you were not paying attention but India recently passed the UK into 5th place.
Yes, my point is that it doesn't make India richer than UK. You have to look at GDP per capita for any reasonable comparison. UK goes down to 25th rank in that ranking. So it's not as rich as you think."Thanks for explaining that but you miss the point that if this country was properly organised then it is rich enough as a whole to provide an excellent healthcare service for the population. BTW I hope you have health insurance seeing as you are not a citizen? Assume you are here on a visa? | |||
" It is. Maybe you were not paying attention but India recently passed the UK into 5th place. Yes, my point is that it doesn't make India richer than UK. You have to look at GDP per capita for any reasonable comparison. UK goes down to 25th rank in that ranking. So it's not as rich as you think. Thanks for explaining that but you miss the point that if this country was properly organised then it is rich enough as a whole to provide an excellent healthcare service for the population. BTW I hope you have health insurance seeing as you are not a citizen? Assume you are here on a visa? " I do have private health insurance provided by my employer though I can use NHS. As for UK's ability to organise a well funded healthcare, you need to realise that UK and most European countries are going through a population crisis. Wealth means fuck all if there aren't enough people to provide services. It seemed to work in the past when you had a majorly active population and hence, being wasteful didn't really affect the outcomes that much. But as things stand they do and soon there won't be money to afford most social welfare services and some hard choices have to be made. | |||
" It is. Maybe you were not paying attention but India recently passed the UK into 5th place. Yes, my point is that it doesn't make India richer than UK. You have to look at GDP per capita for any reasonable comparison. UK goes down to 25th rank in that ranking. So it's not as rich as you think. Thanks for explaining that but you miss the point that if this country was properly organised then it is rich enough as a whole to provide an excellent healthcare service for the population. BTW I hope you have health insurance seeing as you are not a citizen? Assume you are here on a visa? I do have private health insurance provided by my employer though I can use NHS. As for UK's ability to organise a well funded healthcare, you need to realise that UK and most European countries are going through a population crisis. Wealth means fuck all if there aren't enough people to provide services. It seemed to work in the past when you had a majorly active population and hence, being wasteful didn't really affect the outcomes that much. But as things stand they do and soon there won't be money to afford most social welfare services and some hard choices have to be made." So except for A&E I don’t think you should have access to the NHS (unless your insurer pays). | |||
" I think it is weird that people ascribe a political leaning towards charity. Or take the piss out of a supposed political leaning. I bet there are philanthropists of left and right leanings who donate to charities. I don't mind people minding their own business, whether they donate to charity or not. But if someone is going to lecture on the internet about compassion and altruism, I would expect them to put their money where their mouth is. If all they want to do is to virtue signal in public while lacking any of those said virtues, I will point out their hypocrisy to them. Even if they want the government to do the work, if they really cared, they would have surely tried paying more voluntary tax? Last time I checked, the government got something around £1500 in a year in voluntary taxes. If every left winger on the internet paid a pound, they would have received lot more. But hey, it's easy to act like one is so sanctimonious on the internet than actually making personal sacrifices for the cause. People give to charity all the time, but the healthcare needs of a country are not something that should be left to charity. Do you overpay to HMRC? It seems like the sensible thing to do if you believe strongly that charitable donations are not the right way to go. I don’t believe that charitable donations are wrong, I just believe that the health of a nation is too important to be left to something like charity. I’m patriotic like that. I could be an edge lord on the internet, safe in the knowledge that the stuff I profess to want will never come about, and that I will always have a safety net, but that seems a bit, well, pathetic. If you are patriotic and care about healthcare, why aren't you making overpayments to HMRC? It’s odd that you equate patriotism to cash. Have you ever considered putting your money where your mouth is and living somewhere without a safety net, or would reality be a little too scary for you? NHS needs more funding. You care about healthcare and the country. Pretty sure giving cash to HMRC is the right course of action here. Or do you believe in clapping hands from the balcony? I have lived in three countries so far. Only here, I have been forced to depend too much on the NHS. In the other countries, I didn't have to. What healthcare did you need in the other two countries? How much did that cost you? In India, there is a thriving private sector. Most middle class and lower middle class(where I am from) do not use government healthcare even though it is free. We have doctors providing services for cheap cost and also high cost. Rich people go to the high cost doctors and poor and middle class doctors go to the cheaper doctors. There are problems because India is a poor country in general. But given the limited wealth, they operate much more efficiently. In the US, I was working and had my insurance covered by my employer. Based on that I am surprised you cannot see that your argument is now a moot point! BTW to help the NHS I would require that all migrants into the UK (not refugees, those on work or student visas) MUST have full health insurance cover (which could be from their employer) for the duration of their visa and if extended/renewed." Already is! Most foreign nationals applying for temporary permission to live in the UK are required to pay an immigration health surcharge (IHS) in addition to the visa application fee. From 6 February 2024, the standard rate will be £1,035 per year of the visa, paid in advance | |||
" It is. Maybe you were not paying attention but India recently passed the UK into 5th place. Yes, my point is that it doesn't make India richer than UK. You have to look at GDP per capita for any reasonable comparison. UK goes down to 25th rank in that ranking. So it's not as rich as you think. Thanks for explaining that but you miss the point that if this country was properly organised then it is rich enough as a whole to provide an excellent healthcare service for the population. BTW I hope you have health insurance seeing as you are not a citizen? Assume you are here on a visa? I do have private health insurance provided by my employer though I can use NHS. As for UK's ability to organise a well funded healthcare, you need to realise that UK and most European countries are going through a population crisis. Wealth means fuck all if there aren't enough people to provide services. It seemed to work in the past when you had a majorly active population and hence, being wasteful didn't really affect the outcomes that much. But as things stand they do and soon there won't be money to afford most social welfare services and some hard choices have to be made. So except for A&E I don’t think you should have access to the NHS (unless your insurer pays)." I have access to NHS. There is an immigrant health surcharge that I have to pay. But that's paid by my employer too. | |||
"Last Labour government got waiting lists for life changing operations down by half (from 4 million to less than 2 million patients) between 2007 and 2009. We are currently sitting with 6 million patients on waiting lists. If you find yourself questioning if Labour are for the NHS and will protect it, just look at the parties track record and the size of the turd the tories dropped on our national health service They took £13 billion of private sector money to do that, it only cost £55 billion to pay back and it played a significant part in the demise of NHS funding. The stats do look good though "At least they didn't blow £200b on shit ppe, and let it slide | |||
"The mess we’ve got now is what happens when you run a health system as some kind of weird ideological cult. The business model doesn't work as a Trust, however business models do infiltrate aspects of it (but not in terms of profit). IT is a big issue - incompatible systems preventing communication between community and acute care, for instance.why was funding given to Hester for primary care IT systems, and not those used in hospitals? Surely not nepotism?
The question I can't get my head around is why the IT system is so bad.
It is not linked up, some departments at our local hospital send appointments on the NHS app, others can't as they "aren't connected" and send letters in the post. Same hospital, departments are actually adjacent to each other in the building.
There is no proper connection between the hospital and the GP.
No connection at all between pharmacies and the main records - our daughter had some travel vaccinations at the GP and they appeared on the app. For some unknown reason the GP wouldn't do all of them (even if we paid) so the rest were done at a pharmacy. None of those are on the NHS app.
As someone who works with computers every day, I understand they only deal with data and it is relatively easy to translate data from one format to another. So it can't be lack of investment, it must be total incompetence.
Probably a data protection thing. The NHS can't share your data with private businesses without consent.
Doesn't explain why different parts of the NHS aren't linked.
Pharmacy maybe, but they should be able to upload data.
The lack of integration is, in part, down to the NHS not being a single organisation. For decades now it has been a fragmented set of separate organisations, some public sector and some private sector, all operating under a brand. Each of these organisations will have their own systems and linking them is probably really difficult due to a lack of interoperability.
As I said, incompetence.
Incompetence to have fragmentation.
Incompetence to not have one central purchasing and IT department, employing experts.
Incompetence in procuring systems without insisting on interoperability and open standards.
Incompetence in using proprietary systems.
Incompetence in not sorting it out, any systems can be made to talk to each other or at least the data can be put on a new system and translated."So you say you work with computers. I don't. So if I'm running a system on windows 89, and you're running on Windows 2000, would your system be compatible to mine. | |||
" So if I'm running a system on windows 89, and you're running on Windows 2000, would your system be compatible to mine. " The answer is always yes. Sometimes through use of a third system that's is designed specifically to talk to all other systems. The NHS tried this in early 2000s with Spine (oversimplifying). | |||
" So if I'm running a system on windows 89, and you're running on Windows 2000, would your system be compatible to mine. The answer is always yes. Sometimes through use of a third system that's is designed specifically to talk to all other systems. The NHS tried this in early 2000s with Spine (oversimplifying)." No expert, but I can see OS will be different. But then isn't it about defining data exchange protocols in initial IT specification? | |||
" So if I'm running a system on windows 89, and you're running on Windows 2000, would your system be compatible to mine. The answer is always yes. Sometimes through use of a third system that's is designed specifically to talk to all other systems. The NHS tried this in early 2000s with Spine (oversimplifying). No expert, but I can see OS will be different. But then isn't it about defining data exchange protocols in initial IT specification?" The operating system is irrelevant (in my view open source operating systems and software should be used across the public sector including government, health and education). Data is stored in some form, hopefully in databases, therefore should be able to be accessed and transferred or translated to other systems. If it can't, and organisations are locked in to proprietary systems, again this is complete incompetence on the part of the specifier or procurer of the system. | |||
| |||
" So if I'm running a system on windows 89, and you're running on Windows 2000, would your system be compatible to mine. The answer is always yes. Sometimes through use of a third system that's is designed specifically to talk to all other systems. The NHS tried this in early 2000s with Spine (oversimplifying). No expert, but I can see OS will be different. But then isn't it about defining data exchange protocols in initial IT specification?" Hahaha. You'd think. In the specification document (for this glorious NHS IT project), some idiot mixed up Mbps and MBps. The supplier, naturally, went with the Mbps, which is 8 times slower. Thanks, autocorrect/idiot who didn't know better. It was a disaster. | |||
" So if I'm running a system on windows 89, and you're running on Windows 2000, would your system be compatible to mine. The answer is always yes. Sometimes through use of a third system that's is designed specifically to talk to all other systems. The NHS tried this in early 2000s with Spine (oversimplifying). No expert, but I can see OS will be different. But then isn't it about defining data exchange protocols in initial IT specification? The operating system is irrelevant (in my view open source operating systems and software should be used across the public sector including government, health and education). Data is stored in some form, hopefully in databases, therefore should be able to be accessed and transferred or translated to other systems. If it can't, and organisations are locked in to proprietary systems, again this is complete incompetence on the part of the specifier or procurer of the system." Totally agree when looking with a 21st century open source viewpoint. Anybody today commissioning a proprietary system is stupid. However, weren’t all these systems built decades ago? | |||
" So if I'm running a system on windows 89, and you're running on Windows 2000, would your system be compatible to mine. The answer is always yes. Sometimes through use of a third system that's is designed specifically to talk to all other systems. The NHS tried this in early 2000s with Spine (oversimplifying). No expert, but I can see OS will be different. But then isn't it about defining data exchange protocols in initial IT specification? Hahaha. You'd think. In the specification document (for this glorious NHS IT project), some idiot mixed up Mbps and MBps. The supplier, naturally, went with the Mbps, which is 8 times slower. Thanks, autocorrect/idiot who didn't know better. It was a disaster." Ouch! | |||
" No expert, but I can see OS will be different. But then isn't it about defining data exchange protocols in initial IT specification?" OS is irrelevant. What needed (and still needs) to happen is a complete rethink of what the NHS should do and how it should do it. Consider a target vision, then take steps to get a realistic "close enough" model going, against a moving target. Difficult, yes. 5-10 years, minimum. But doable. Tony Blair had absolutely the right idea about digitising government services. It just unraveled with incompetence and his eventual hubris, where it became a failing vanity project where that failure was politically shielded, at huge expense and much inefficiency. We're talking about legacy systems on creaking infrastructure where many of the issues are political and self imposed. Things are slowly getting better, though. There is a good amount of dialogue between many systems, but it's still way to fragmented to be efficient. Data exchange protocols are well and good, but we're talking about thousands of systems, some are hardly supported anymore. Separate project: Did some consulting for the NHS to audit/investigate (a huge US supplier of medical systems). Came back with a report strongly questioning their quality/integrity. Was told to rework it to explain how well we're collaborating. Hmm... | |||
" No expert, but I can see OS will be different. But then isn't it about defining data exchange protocols in initial IT specification? OS is irrelevant. What needed (and still needs) to happen is a complete rethink of what the NHS should do and how it should do it. Consider a target vision, then take steps to get a realistic "close enough" model going, against a moving target. Difficult, yes. 5-10 years, minimum. But doable. Tony Blair had absolutely the right idea about digitising government services. It just unraveled with incompetence and his eventual hubris, where it became a failing vanity project where that failure was politically shielded, at huge expense and much inefficiency. We're talking about legacy systems on creaking infrastructure where many of the issues are political and self imposed. Things are slowly getting better, though. There is a good amount of dialogue between many systems, but it's still way to fragmented to be efficient. Data exchange protocols are well and good, but we're talking about thousands of systems, some are hardly supported anymore. Separate project: Did some consulting for the NHS to audit/investigate (a huge US supplier of medical systems). Came back with a report strongly questioning their quality/integrity. Was told to rework it to explain how well we're collaborating. Hmm..." “The truth? You can’t handle the truth!” | |||
"The mess we’ve got now is what happens when you run a health system as some kind of weird ideological cult. The business model doesn't work as a Trust, however business models do infiltrate aspects of it (but not in terms of profit). IT is a big issue - incompatible systems preventing communication between community and acute care, for instance.why was funding given to Hester for primary care IT systems, and not those used in hospitals? Surely not nepotism?
The question I can't get my head around is why the IT system is so bad.
It is not linked up, some departments at our local hospital send appointments on the NHS app, others can't as they "aren't connected" and send letters in the post. Same hospital, departments are actually adjacent to each other in the building.
There is no proper connection between the hospital and the GP.
No connection at all between pharmacies and the main records - our daughter had some travel vaccinations at the GP and they appeared on the app. For some unknown reason the GP wouldn't do all of them (even if we paid) so the rest were done at a pharmacy. None of those are on the NHS app.
As someone who works with computers every day, I understand they only deal with data and it is relatively easy to translate data from one format to another. So it can't be lack of investment, it must be total incompetence.
Probably a data protection thing. The NHS can't share your data with private businesses without consent.
Doesn't explain why different parts of the NHS aren't linked.
Pharmacy maybe, but they should be able to upload data.
The lack of integration is, in part, down to the NHS not being a single organisation. For decades now it has been a fragmented set of separate organisations, some public sector and some private sector, all operating under a brand. Each of these organisations will have their own systems and linking them is probably really difficult due to a lack of interoperability.
As I said, incompetence.
Incompetence to have fragmentation.
Incompetence to not have one central purchasing and IT department, employing experts.
Incompetence in procuring systems without insisting on interoperability and open standards.
Incompetence in using proprietary systems.
Incompetence in not sorting it out, any systems can be made to talk to each other or at least the data can be put on a new system and translated.
So you say you work with computers.
I don't.
So if I'm running a system on windows 89, and you're running on Windows 2000, would your system be compatible to mine. "That is not the issue. It's more like getting one app/programme to talk to another. | |||
" So if I'm running a system on windows 89, and you're running on Windows 2000, would your system be compatible to mine. The answer is always yes. Sometimes through use of a third system that's is designed specifically to talk to all other systems. The NHS tried this in early 2000s with Spine (oversimplifying). No expert, but I can see OS will be different. But then isn't it about defining data exchange protocols in initial IT specification? The operating system is irrelevant (in my view open source operating systems and software should be used across the public sector including government, health and education). Data is stored in some form, hopefully in databases, therefore should be able to be accessed and transferred or translated to other systems. If it can't, and organisations are locked in to proprietary systems, again this is complete incompetence on the part of the specifier or procurer of the system." My opinion on what you're saying is that it could possibly easier to breach. | |||
Just got the result in this morning's post.
In truth, the hospital was amazingly busy, but MRI throughput is doubly amazing.
Go. NHS !!!
| |||
" No expert, but I can see OS will be different. But then isn't it about defining data exchange protocols in initial IT specification? OS is irrelevant. What needed (and still needs) to happen is a complete rethink of what the NHS should do and how it should do it. Consider a target vision, then take steps to get a realistic "close enough" model going, against a moving target. Difficult, yes. 5-10 years, minimum. But doable. Tony Blair had absolutely the right idea about digitising government services. It just unraveled with incompetence and his eventual hubris, where it became a failing vanity project where that failure was politically shielded, at huge expense and much inefficiency. We're talking about legacy systems on creaking infrastructure where many of the issues are political and self imposed. Things are slowly getting better, though. There is a good amount of dialogue between many systems, but it's still way to fragmented to be efficient. Data exchange protocols are well and good, but we're talking about thousands of systems, some are hardly supported anymore. Separate project: Did some consulting for the NHS to audit/investigate (a huge US supplier of medical systems). Came back with a report strongly questioning their quality/integrity. Was told to rework it to explain how well we're collaborating. Hmm..." No one in NHSE will ever admit failure, or allow anyone to admit it on their behalf! | |||
"My Husband went for an MRI on Tuesday. The MRI took 2 mins (literally, the time in the machine) He had no waiting room time because we were there a half hour early, and they called him in before we even had a chance to sit down.
Just got the result in this morning's post.
In truth, the hospital was amazingly busy, but MRI throughput is doubly amazing.
Go. NHS !!!"Recently I had to go to an emergency clinic (on a Sunday) for a painful tooth. I was given an appointment for 12:20, and I arrived early at 12:00, to find a note on the receptionists window saying that I should take a seat and wait. I waited for 40 minutes before someone opened the window, and after asking my name and date of birth, the next question was "how are you going to pay"? They wouldn't let me fill in the forms until I had paid. The dentists finally came out at 12:45, and I got called in at 12:50. I was diagnosed with an infected tooth, and told that I should just take some painkillers and see my normal dentist on the Monday. The most galling part was that the entire time I was waiting, I could hear the staff gossiping behind their closed window. Even 20 minutes after my appointment time they were still chatting. "Go NHS" was not what I was thinking as I walked out. | |||
"My Husband went for an MRI on Tuesday. The MRI took 2 mins (literally, the time in the machine) He had no waiting room time because we were there a half hour early, and they called him in before we even had a chance to sit down.
Just got the result in this morning's post.
In truth, the hospital was amazingly busy, but MRI throughput is doubly amazing.
Go. NHS !!!
Recently I had to go to an emergency clinic (on a Sunday) for a painful tooth. I was given an appointment for 12:20, and I arrived early at 12:00, to find a note on the receptionists window saying that I should take a seat and wait. I waited for 40 minutes before someone opened the window, and after asking my name and date of birth, the next question was "how are you going to pay"? They wouldn't let me fill in the forms until I had paid. The dentists finally came out at 12:45, and I got called in at 12:50. I was diagnosed with an infected tooth, and told that I should just take some painkillers and see my normal dentist on the Monday.
The most galling part was that the entire time I was waiting, I could hear the staff gossiping behind their closed window. Even 20 minutes after my appointment time they were still chatting.
"Go NHS" was not what I was thinking as I walked out."I guess that you have to call it in the direction you experience it. If I had to wait significantly, I would go private without thinking. | |||
