Would you scalp George Osborne
Comments
-
TailWindHome wrote:
See, that's the problem. Argue that the NHS should face some cuts and the response is barely above the level of "won't somebody think of the children!?"
Some of the crap that the NHS spends money on is ridiculous.Rules are for fools.0 -
On the other hand, I think you'll find most NHS trusts having to work pretty hard just to stay within their current budgets.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
the nhs needs streamlining. people bang on about how it is free, no its not look at the hole in your pay packet, nor is it value for money. People should pay small fees for services that would keep the malingers away from the doctors. Example in australia I went to the doctors about a bad back, in the same surgery I had an xray, and blood samples taken, the next day an MRI scan at the same surgery, I paid a percentage of the total I think about £75 which I would rather pay than waiting months. Plus as with all government sectors they only focus on cures rather than prevention, want to improve health, make good food affordable, cycling safe, etc.0
-
Waddlie wrote:notsoblue wrote:
The NHS budget is enormous; apparently larger than defence and education combined (I'm sure I read this today but can't find the link. Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.) We like to think of it being spent on doctors, nurses, drugs and hospitals. Sadly, it is also spent on layer upon layer of management, consultants, homeopaths and complete nonsense. Homeopaths, for God's sake. Have a look at Connecting For Health, how much it has cost and what it's achieved. To set the NHS aside and pretend there isn't a substantial amount of fat that could be trimmed from it is ludicrous.
Making the NHS exempt from arbitrary cuts doesn't equate to "pretend[ing] there isn't a substantial amount of fat that could be trimmed". Any contact I or my friends and family have had with the NHS has been excellent. I really have no problem with the institution and the fact that its budget is enormous doesn't automatically make it ripe for cutting down. Looking after a whole country's health and wellbeing isn't cheap. If I was able to remember the source, I'd cite an article I'd read a few months back that showed that the NHS gives better value for money than the health services in most other large western countries.
As for Connecting For Health - is that the part of the NHS that allowed for me to have a digital X-Ray the last time I was in A&E? That was pretty cool.0 -
TailWindHome wrote:
I think you're missing the point.
It's not that these two groups are annoying or irritating.
It's that we can't afford to support them or prolong their lives.
So, no more silly tabloid newspaper headline-style posts, please.0 -
Waddlie wrote:TailWindHome wrote:
See, that's the problem. Argue that the NHS should face some cuts and the response is barely above the level of "won't somebody think of the children!?"
Some of the crap that the NHS spends money on is ridiculous.
Hmmmm
On the other hand those who advocate cuts start talking about consultants, middle managers and homeopathic medicine.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Greg66 wrote:TailWindHome wrote:
I think you're missing the point.
It's not that these two groups are annoying or irritating.
It's that we can't afford to support them or prolong their lives.
So, no more silly tabloid newspaper headline-style posts, please.
I'm making no promises“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
On the NHS,
Firstly we have both an increasing and ageing population. The requirement to provide healthcare services is increasing, so if you reduce the budget greatly you dimish the ability to do just that. FACT.
With that logic in mind I also think the police budget should have been maintained with the guarantee that 20% of increase of officers on the beat.
One of the Worlds largest employees. Does this include just the NHS i.e. medical staff, paramedics, psychologists, psychiatrists, nurses, doctors etc. Or also additional services, pharmacuticals (sp), research, Universities and other businesses it employees to provide, maintain and develop healthcare services?
See a lot of people look at their hospital and GP surgery and think "yeah that's the NHS" without ever once trying to grasp the sheer magnitude of what is involved in delivering healthcare and the many diverse, acute and specialist services alone.
On it's budget: Each Trust is required to make a 3% savings each year every year. The sword was swung ages ago when the NHS had to make efficiency savings prior to this election. The sword was swung again by the shift from PCT to GP commissioning. The sword was further swung by reducing the amount of money that goes to commissioners, Council's and such. What this means is that they have to give the NHS less, without the Government doing so. So on paper it looks like its protected.
How I know this? Funding for NHS services in a few London boroughs has reduced by half and services (much needed services given the immediate social concerns of the area) are having to close, let alone people loosing jobs.
(There are, however, in some places where I agree the NHS could trim the fat)Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Tax Dodger!
Apparently his father is leaving him several million in trust. By leaving it in trust Mr Osbourne junior stands to make an extra couple of million by avoiding inhertance tax.
Whilst the practice is perfectly legal it once again raises doubts as to the integrity and moral standing of our leaders.
Do as we say not as we do.0 -
Dirtydog11 wrote:Tax Dodger!
Apparently his father is leaving him several million in trust. By leaving it in trust Mr Osbourne junior stands to make an extra couple of million by avoiding inhertance tax.
Whilst the practice is perfectly legal it once again raises doubts as to the integrity and moral standing of our leaders.
Do as we say not as we do.
We're all in this together.0 -
surreyxc wrote:the nhs needs streamlining. people bang on about how it is free, no its not look at the hole in your pay packet, nor is it value for money. People should pay small fees for services that would keep the malingers away from the doctors. Example in australia I went to the doctors about a bad back, in the same surgery I had an xray, and blood samples taken, the next day an MRI scan at the same surgery, I paid a percentage of the total I think about £75 which I would rather pay than waiting months. Plus as with all government sectors they only focus on cures rather than prevention, want to improve health, make good food affordable, cycling safe, etc.
Where to start?
Free at the point of use, not absolutely free.
Value for money? As defined how exactly? Fairly sure NICE looks very closely at whether treatments provide value for money cf. various stories about people being denied very expensive cancer drugs that prolong life by only a few weeks.
People already do pay small fees for dentistry and eye check-ups; I've yet to be convinced that this has revolutionised dental treatment, but the shortage of NHS dentists in this country is well publicised.
I'd hazard a guess that even in Australia, a surgery with an MRI scanner is unusual.
Out of interest, what percentage of the total cost was your £75 contribution? What if you didn't have £75?
It's a lot easier to keep waiting times down when you can pick and choose who you treat.
Lastly, I think food prices are way beyond the abilities of the NHS or even the government to control, affected as they are by climate patterns and energy prices. I'm also fairly sure the government spends quite a lot on promoting healthy lifestyles, but gets accused of being a 'nanny state'.
Harumph.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Firstly we have both an increasing and ageing population. The requirement to provide healthcare services is increasing, so if you reduce the budget greatly you dimish the ability to do just that. FACT.
It's not a FACT at all.
If you can reduce wastage, overspending, excess staff etc then you can keep (or even reduce) budgets and still deliver more (and better) services.
There is no good reason (excpet for mismanagement, inefficiency and dead wood staff) as to why the health service in the UK employs more people than any other employer in the world apart from the Chinese army and the Indian Railway. Both those countries dwarf ours in terms of size and population - the NHS shouldn't be anywhere near that.0 -
Dirtydog11 wrote:Tax Dodger!
Apparently his father is leaving him several million in trust. By leaving it in trust Mr Osbourne junior stands to make an extra couple of million by avoiding inhertance tax.
Whilst the practice is perfectly legal it once again raises doubts as to the integrity and moral standing of our leaders.
Do as we say not as we do.
It's perfectly legal, as you say. Should politicians and their families pay more in tax than they are obliged to? Should anyone? Do you?
In fact there's nothing to stop others doing as he is doing.....0 -
W1 wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Firstly we have both an increasing and ageing population. The requirement to provide healthcare services is increasing, so if you reduce the budget greatly you dimish the ability to do just that. FACT.
It's not a FACT at all.
If you can reduce wastage, overspending, excess staff etc then you can keep (or even reduce) budgets and still deliver more (and better) services.
There is no good reason (excpet for mismanagement, inefficiency and dead wood staff) as to why the health service in the UK employs more people than any other employer in the world apart from the Chinese army and the Indian Railway. Both those countries dwarf ours in terms of size and population - the NHS shouldn't be anywhere near that.
I find it very bizarre that your automatic reasoning for the NHS being such a large employer is "mismanagement, inefficiency and dead wood staff". Even after DDD briefly explained ways in which efficiency is improved and budgets reduced, you ignore everything he said and then just went back to the "Lazy Public Sector Criticism" script...0 -
TailWindHome wrote:Waddlie wrote:TailWindHome wrote:
See, that's the problem. Argue that the NHS should face some cuts and the response is barely above the level of "won't somebody think of the children!?"
Some of the crap that the NHS spends money on is ridiculous.
Hmmmm
On the other hand those who advocate cuts start talking about consultants, middle managers and homeopathic medicine.
I don't see your point. Your initial post owed more to emotion than to reason. I put forward a number of areas which could be considered ripe for a culling. Are you saying the amount of cash the NHS spends on consultants, middle managers and homeopathy is appropriate? If not, what?Rules are for fools.0 -
W1 wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Firstly we have both an increasing and ageing population. The requirement to provide healthcare services is increasing, so if you reduce the budget greatly you dimish the ability to do just that. FACT.
It's not a FACT at all.
Let me repeat that which is fact.
We have an increasing population. There are more people living in England than ever.
We have an ageing population. People are living longer.
These are well documented. These are FACTS.
Are you trying to say that there are less people living in England and people are living shorter lives?If you can reduce wastage, overspending, excess staff etc then you can keep (or even reduce) budgets and still deliver more (and better) services.
Up to a point, yes. Haowever, everyone has a maximum capacity and there will come a time when you need another nurse, doctor or administrator to handle the workload. It isn't for me to decide when that is, but to simply acknowledge that this may be the case.There is no good reason (excpet for mismanagement, inefficiency and dead wood staff) as to why the health service in the UK employs more people than any other employer in the world apart from the Chinese army and the Indian Railway. Both those countries dwarf ours in terms of size and population - the NHS shouldn't be anywhere near that.
Very easy to say. Can you list all the services and business ventures, research, medical and treatment development, staff and student training the NHS undertakes both here and (to my surprise abroad). When you can, I don't think it will be that easy to say again.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Personally I think that
*Education
*Health
*Police and related services
Should have been largely protected. Those for me are the key things that help maintain and keep a healthy society.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:W1 wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Firstly we have both an increasing and ageing population. The requirement to provide healthcare services is increasing, so if you reduce the budget greatly you dimish the ability to do just that. FACT.
It's not a FACT at all.
Let me repeat that which is fact.
We have an increasing population. There are more people living in England than ever.
We have an ageing population. People are living longer.
These are well documented. These are FACTS.
Are you trying to say that there are less people living in England and people are living shorter lives?If you can reduce wastage, overspending, excess staff etc then you can keep (or even reduce) budgets and still deliver more (and better) services.
Up to a point, yes. Haowever, everyone has a maximum capacity and there will come a time when you need another nurse, doctor or administrator to handle the workload. It isn't for me to decide when that is, but to simply acknowledge that this may be the case.There is no good reason (excpet for mismanagement, inefficiency and dead wood staff) as to why the health service in the UK employs more people than any other employer in the world apart from the Chinese army and the Indian Railway. Both those countries dwarf ours in terms of size and population - the NHS shouldn't be anywhere near that.
Very easy to say. Can you list all the services and business ventures, research, medical and treatment development, staff and student training the NHS undertakes both here and (to my surprise abroad). When you can, I don't think it will be that easy to say again.
OK, so it's NOT a FACT that "if you reduce the budget greatly you dimish the ability to do just that". So why state that it is?
And why does the UK undertake all of these "extras" when no other European country (regardless of how large) does? Why is the NHS employing so many people? Why are other countries not doing so?
There is no reason for the NHS to be so large, and employ so many people, when compared to similarly sized comparators.0 -
To swing off in a different direction, I am pleased that International Development has been protected as well. Even in the state we are in, we are still vastly better off than so many other parts of the world.
Less altruistically, we have rather made a mess of quite a few places, and from a security point of view, it's in our own interest to try and clear up that mess.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Firstly we have both an increasing and ageing population. The requirement to provide healthcare services is increasing, so if you reduce the budget greatly you dimish the ability to do just that. FACT.
It's not a FACT at all.
If you can reduce wastage, overspending, excess staff etc then you can keep (or even reduce) budgets and still deliver more (and better) services.
There is no good reason (excpet for mismanagement, inefficiency and dead wood staff) as to why the health service in the UK employs more people than any other employer in the world apart from the Chinese army and the Indian Railway. Both those countries dwarf ours in terms of size and population - the NHS shouldn't be anywhere near that.
I find it very bizarre that your automatic reasoning for the NHS being such a large employer is "mismanagement, inefficiency and dead wood staff". Even after DDD briefly explained ways in which efficiency is improved and budgets reduced, you ignore everything he said and then just went back to the "Lazy Public Sector Criticism" script...
I find it equally bizarre that you are such a public sector apologist - that's a "script" too I suoppose. It's your tax money that is being wasted, surely you object to that?
It is logical to conclude that if other countries do not require such a large health service then there is something going wrong with ours. My experience of the public sector would point the finger at mismanagement, inefficiency and an inability to fire useless staff. There may well be other factors, such as abuse by overuse (which is why I would agree fothat small charges should be levied to put off the time-wasters and those who don't show up) but that still doesn't justify the enormous size of the NHS for our relatively small, developed country.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Personally I think that
*Education
*Health
*Police and related services
Should have been largely protected. Those for me are the key things that help maintain and keep a healthy society.
Then you should be happy with these cuts.
I think the police budget should be reduced on the basis that all the form-filling is also reduced - that decreases costs whilst also increasing policing levels.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Personally I think that
*Education
*Health
*Police and related services
Should have been largely protected. Those for me are the key things that help maintain and keep a healthy society.
You forgot Defence. Security of the nation and all that.
And Welfare. We can't take away welfare.
Or Pensions. Do you *want* to starve old people to death in their homes, or would you rather freeze them to death instead?
Energy and Climate Change - well, that's the most important issue affecting the entire world ever, so that has to be protected. Besides, who could forget Gordo telling us about a year ago that we had 45 days to save the world from climate change. *That's* how important this one is.
Sport & Culture. We'd be a laughing stock is the Olympics aren't first class. Protect that.
Justice. Access to the courts is a pretty fundamental right in a civilised democracy. Can't cut back there.
Foreign Office. We're British, for goodness, sake. This isn't bloody Switzerland or Lichtenstein. We need a presence abroad. No cuts there either.
Foreign development? No way. Charity begins at home. Particularly if we want these countries to trade with us.
See, it's a lot easier to play the game of protecting things than it is to cut...0 -
TailWindHome wrote:cjcp wrote:That yet another Labour Govt left us knee-deep in the financial do-do again?
Thats what you're meant to think.
Spot on. Who was it in the Nazi party who said "the principle and which is quite true in itself and that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily"
Basically...the bigger the lie, the more it will be believed. This is why every single Tory (inc. The Lib Dem Puppet Show) always use the line 'this is all Labour's fault' tagged on somewhere in their interview.
Sure...Labour made some mistakes but this problem lies firmly at the feet of the bankers, startig with Lehman Brothers. Whichever party was in power would have done the same which would have resulted in the same deficit.
The Government weren't moaning during the times as they were benefitting nicely during their days in opposition. Now that the shoot has hit the fan they want to look like heroes and paint the Labour party as evil villains. And the Lib Dems has just shoved their fingers up the asses of the nearest meal ticket.
For the record I didn't vote for any of the big three.0 -
W1 wrote:
OK, so it's NOT a FACT that "if you reduce the budget greatly you dimish the ability to do just that". So why state that it is?
Oh yeah, sorry, that's a FACT too.
Pretty obvious that one I'd have thought.And why does the UK undertake all of these "extras" when no other European country (regardless of how large) does? Why is the NHS employing so many people? Why are other countries not doing so?
Do you know that no other European Country (or any Country) doesn't? Do you, as a starting point, have an understanding of how technology to provide better treatment and services is developed? Do you have a grasp of how many services are provided and the staff needed to perform, say, a life saving operation?
Do you know how much better this Healthcare system is compared to other healthcare systems in other parts of the World?
OK.There is no reason for the NHS to be so large, and employ so many people, when compared to similarly sized comparators.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
rjsterry wrote:To swing off in a different direction, I am pleased that International Development has been protected as well. Even in the state we are in, we are still vastly better off than so many other parts of the world.
Agree in principle, but disagree in practice. If you'd seen Private Eye's investigation into the CDC you'd understand why, but sadly it's hidden behind a paywall...
Rules are for fools.0 -
[edited - double post]Rules are for fools.0
-
rjsterry wrote:Less altruistically, we have rather made a mess of quite a few places, and from a security point of view, it's in our own interest to try and clear up that mess.
Yes... I have to admit that I've never been able to swallow the whole "evil Imperialist power that ruined large tracts of the world" line. I rather think that the Empire did quite a lot of good (esp if compared to other global empires of the last 2000 years).0 -
W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Firstly we have both an increasing and ageing population. The requirement to provide healthcare services is increasing, so if you reduce the budget greatly you dimish the ability to do just that. FACT.
It's not a FACT at all.
If you can reduce wastage, overspending, excess staff etc then you can keep (or even reduce) budgets and still deliver more (and better) services.
There is no good reason (excpet for mismanagement, inefficiency and dead wood staff) as to why the health service in the UK employs more people than any other employer in the world apart from the Chinese army and the Indian Railway. Both those countries dwarf ours in terms of size and population - the NHS shouldn't be anywhere near that.
I find it very bizarre that your automatic reasoning for the NHS being such a large employer is "mismanagement, inefficiency and dead wood staff". Even after DDD briefly explained ways in which efficiency is improved and budgets reduced, you ignore everything he said and then just went back to the "Lazy Public Sector Criticism" script...
I find it equally bizarre that you are such a public sector apologist - that's a "script" too I suoppose. It's your tax money that is being wasted, surely you object to that?
It is logical to conclude that if other countries do not require such a large health service then there is something going wrong with ours. My experience of the public sector would point the finger at mismanagement, inefficiency and an inability to fire useless staff. There may well be other factors, such as abuse by overuse (which is why I would agree fothat small charges should be levied to put off the time-wasters and those who don't show up) but that still doesn't justify the enormous size of the NHS for our relatively small, developed country.
Out of interest, do you have an example of a health service/system that you do think is the 'right' size and provides a good service? I'm guessing that you have another western European country in mind (I'm pretty sure you don't mean the U.S.)1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
W1 wrote:Dirtydog11 wrote:Tax Dodger!
Apparently his father is leaving him several million in trust. By leaving it in trust Mr Osbourne junior stands to make an extra couple of million by avoiding inhertance tax.
Whilst the practice is perfectly legal it once again raises doubts as to the integrity and moral standing of our leaders.
Do as we say not as we do.
It's perfectly legal, as you say. Should politicians and their families pay more in tax than they are obliged to? Should anyone? Do you?
In fact there's nothing to stop others doing as he is doing.....
No they should pay the same as everyone else, but from a moral standpoint its wrong when tens of thousands of people are going to get their jobs sacrificed in order help cut the deficit.
It is not standard practice for families in this country to leave money in trust. Most families I know leave wills which are subject to inhertance tax, so whats wrong with Osbourne leaving a will?
No moral integrity! Sorry but a lot of them in it just for themselves.0
