|
Post by Northy on Jan 11, 2018 8:09:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jan 11, 2018 8:38:37 GMT
Yes. Well done, Todger, got there eventually. I'll give you a clue: in 1996 team GB won one gold medal at the Atlanta games and came 36th overall. In 1997, lottery funding started going to British athletes. Since that time we have improved and improved to the point where we came a frankly unbelievable second in the medals table at Rio two years ago. All achieved as a result of properly funding our selection, training and coaching systems. That's the level of performance you get if you resource something properly. Meanwhile, we cut funding to our public services, including the NHS in real terms and what happens? They go to rat shit. Well, who would have thought that? And the Tories argue that its nothing to do with money, it's all about waste and inefficiency and cutting costs and look at the extra funds we've given it already (while neglecting to mention it's nowhere near what it needs). Everyone will accept in all walks of life the truism you get what you pay for. Apart from when it comes to paying for decent public services. Two final points - the NHS did improve overall when Labour spent more on it, contrary to what some might claim. They're wrong. We're now underfunding it and it's in crisis. Second, the scandal at Stafford is not a valid argument for the overall state of the NHS under Labour, contrary to what some might claim. They're wrong. It's like you want to prove me right. Funding for the Olympics is a great but daft example. UK Sport faces revolt from 11 sports governing bodies over funding cuts - The Guardian There's never, ever enough money for 'everything'. Anyway, please do post a few links to the NHS "improving" under Labour.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jan 11, 2018 8:48:02 GMT
But you're right Mo. I don't think the NHS is fit for purpose and becoming more so every year. In fact every month of every year. So what are you proposing? More of the same? Just more money would fix the problem? well if this government had not cut the amount per head spent on the health service we certainly would not be in as much aof a mess we are in and if they had invested all those years ago when thatcher was in power then Major in hospitals and the infrastructure instead of feathering there own nests with tax cuts again we would not be in the mess we are now and before you mention PFI (brought in by the Tories by the way) that Labour used to replace hospitals that were falling to bits and not fit for purpose with corridors between wards outside and patients being wheeled to and from surgery outside we would not again be in the mess. and lets not forget the extra levels of management that the Tory's brought in with chief execs on silly money and trust boards being paid again we would not be in as much a mess. Oh and lets not forget the money grabbing drugs firms that support the torys inflating drugs costs to the NHS some drugs costing 10 times or more than they did when they first came out again we would not be in the mess we are. It has been and always has been an aim of the conservative party to dismantle the NHS as private healthcare gives them power over the working classes.as they cant afford it so death rates health rates etc of the poor are then used to keep them where they want them down as serfs. the answer is easy scrap the pen pushers, bring back the old style matrons, get tough with the drug companies, do collective purchasing to drive down prices, invest in our hospitals nurses etc. if this means 1 or 2 p on national insurance so be it and also re establish the amount per head of population to the nhs Ah bless. I might print this off and frame it. Stereotyping 101. Blame the Tories... blah blah blah ...... big drug companies .... blah blah .... privatisation ...... blah.... Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Jan 11, 2018 9:40:16 GMT
well if this government had not cut the amount per head spent on the health service we certainly would not be in as much aof a mess we are in and if they had invested all those years ago when thatcher was in power then Major in hospitals and the infrastructure instead of feathering there own nests with tax cuts again we would not be in the mess we are now and before you mention PFI (brought in by the Tories by the way) that Labour used to replace hospitals that were falling to bits and not fit for purpose with corridors between wards outside and patients being wheeled to and from surgery outside we would not again be in the mess. and lets not forget the extra levels of management that the Tory's brought in with chief execs on silly money and trust boards being paid again we would not be in as much a mess. Oh and lets not forget the money grabbing drugs firms that support the torys inflating drugs costs to the NHS some drugs costing 10 times or more than they did when they first came out again we would not be in the mess we are. It has been and always has been an aim of the conservative party to dismantle the NHS as private healthcare gives them power over the working classes.as they cant afford it so death rates health rates etc of the poor are then used to keep them where they want them down as serfs. the answer is easy scrap the pen pushers, bring back the old style matrons, get tough with the drug companies, do collective purchasing to drive down prices, invest in our hospitals nurses etc. if this means 1 or 2 p on national insurance so be it and also re establish the amount per head of population to the nhs Ah bless. I might print this off and frame it. Stereotyping 101. Blame the Tories... blah blah blah ...... big drug companies .... blah blah .... privatisation ...... blah.... View AttachmentDrugs companies rip off link 1 link 2 link 3Matrons used to control the wards as well as doing there jobs now pen pushers are brought in and admin staff at a significant cost to the NHS this includes publicists, image consultants CEO's etc etc I had an aunt working in the NHS admin when she retired they got 3 people in to do her job how can this be cost effective Overall, the Department of Health’s annual accounts suggest some £10 billion of the total NHS budget of £113 billion is spent on care from non-NHS providers (not including dentistry, medicines or general practice). The BBC reported that in 2013/14 £6.5 billion of that £10 billion was spent on private sector providers. Analysis of the Department of Health’s published accounts show that between 2012/13 and 2013/14 there was a 6.74 per cent growth in real terms on non-NHS providers, compared to 4.26 per cent growth in the previous year and 1.44 per cent the year before that. NHS for salePrior to the 2012 Health and Social Care Act, passed by the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition, hospitals were only allowed to make 2 per cent of their income from private sources, but with the legislation’s passing the cap was lifted to 49 per cent. This act alone has reduced the amount of bed spaces available for the general public to use and has resulted in for profit organisations getting rich on the back of the NHS as funding is cut hospitals are then in a grab to try and make some of this back. what this has meant is people with money can bypass the NHS queues and end up jumping queues to the detriment of NHS patients and an increase in waiting times for operations. Roger there are many examples of how the NHS is being harmed by this government just do your research !!
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jan 11, 2018 10:10:01 GMT
Yes. Well done, Todger, got there eventually. I'll give you a clue: in 1996 team GB won one gold medal at the Atlanta games and came 36th overall. In 1997, lottery funding started going to British athletes. Since that time we have improved and improved to the point where we came a frankly unbelievable second in the medals table at Rio two years ago. All achieved as a result of properly funding our selection, training and coaching systems. That's the level of performance you get if you resource something properly. Meanwhile, we cut funding to our public services, including the NHS in real terms and what happens? They go to rat shit. Well, who would have thought that? And the Tories argue that its nothing to do with money, it's all about waste and inefficiency and cutting costs and look at the extra funds we've given it already (while neglecting to mention it's nowhere near what it needs). Everyone will accept in all walks of life the truism you get what you pay for. Apart from when it comes to paying for decent public services. Two final points - the NHS did improve overall when Labour spent more on it, contrary to what some might claim. They're wrong. We're now underfunding it and it's in crisis. Second, the scandal at Stafford is not a valid argument for the overall state of the NHS under Labour, contrary to what some might claim. They're wrong. It's like you want to prove me right. Funding for the Olympics is a great but daft example. UK Sport faces revolt from 11 sports governing bodies over funding cuts - The Guardian There's never, ever enough money for 'everything'. Anyway, please do post a few links to the NHS "improving" under Labour. I thought you'd blocked me, Todge! And how do you explain GBs dramatically improved performances since lottery funding came on line?
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jan 11, 2018 10:17:57 GMT
Here you go, Todge, the not exactly left wing FT with a report on how the NHS improved under Labour. www.ft.com/content/168e1278-2b24-11df-93d8-00144feabdc0Alternatively, try the independent Kings Fund report of 1997-2005: www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/field_publication_file/independent-audit-nhs-under-labour-1997%E2%80%932005-sunday-times-march-2005.pdfI quote from the conclusion section below: Overall, in our view, the results of this audit are very positive. The ambition for the NHS has
been appropriately high. There has been unprecedented investment. There has been significant
improvements in most areas the Government has focused policies on. Has there been a ‘stepchange’
in NHS performance? If step-change means a significant change of gear, with more and
better services, then yes there has.Go on, mention Stafford or PFI, you know you want to! They are the standard comfort blanket responses from the right! It's quite simple. You either fund something properly and the GB olympic team IS a great example you're right, and get improved results, or you watch it decline, which is where we are with the NHS now. You get what you pay for, it really is as simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Jan 11, 2018 11:46:34 GMT
A&E misses wait target by record margin linkPatients 'dying in hospital corridors' linkLast week there was a point when 133 out of 137 hospital trusts had an unsafe number of patients on their wards, NHS records show.
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Jan 11, 2018 12:26:41 GMT
The torys the 4th biggest political party behind the SNP and the liberal democrats in membership the party of the rich that have low membership yet people believe there lies dam lies and statistics.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jan 11, 2018 12:44:23 GMT
Hmmm, so let's examine those bits which are actually true. 1. David Cameron had little interest in politics at University. You don't say - you'd never guess would you? 2. He went to S Africa during the apartheid and sanctions era to discuss trade options. Wow! This at a time when many many Tories were opposed to sanctions. 3. Members of the conservatives WERE selling and wearing Hang Nelson Mandela badges and t-shirts. Fairly spectacular own goal that one, Smithers, unless you were trying to out your fellow Tories as extremely unpleasant people, in which case, mission accomplished! One mans hero is another mans terrorist
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jan 11, 2018 12:55:17 GMT
Hmmm, so let's examine those bits which are actually true. 1. David Cameron had little interest in politics at University. You don't say - you'd never guess would you? 2. He went to S Africa during the apartheid and sanctions era to discuss trade options. Wow! This at a time when many many Tories were opposed to sanctions. 3. Members of the conservatives WERE selling and wearing Hang Nelson Mandela badges and t-shirts. Fairly spectacular own goal that one, Smithers, unless you were trying to out your fellow Tories as extremely unpleasant people, in which case, mission accomplished! One mans hero is another mans terrorist That's true - where do you stand on Mandela? The revisionist Tory "he's a hero" or the late 80s Tory "he should be hanged"?
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jan 11, 2018 13:09:04 GMT
One mans hero is another mans terrorist That's true - where do you stand on Mandela? The revisionist Tory "he's a hero" or the late 80s Tory "he should be hanged"? I am basically ambivalent towards him the man was a convicted criminal who was convicted of a crime and served his sentence All ex criminals deserve the right to be judge for there actions after there crime not before I was not a fan of his political view point But appreciate he stopped a blood bath And prevented South Africa becoming another southern Rhodesia
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jan 11, 2018 13:13:13 GMT
Ah bless. I might print this off and frame it. Stereotyping 101. Blame the Tories... blah blah blah ...... big drug companies .... blah blah .... privatisation ...... blah.... Drugs companies rip off link 1 link 2 link 3Matrons used to control the wards as well as doing there jobs now pen pushers are brought in and admin staff at a significant cost to the NHS this includes publicists, image consultants CEO's etc etc I had an aunt working in the NHS admin when she retired they got 3 people in to do her job how can this be cost effective Overall, the Department of Health’s annual accounts suggest some £10 billion of the total NHS budget of £113 billion is spent on care from non-NHS providers (not including dentistry, medicines or general practice). The BBC reported that in 2013/14 £6.5 billion of that £10 billion was spent on private sector providers. Analysis of the Department of Health’s published accounts show that between 2012/13 and 2013/14 there was a 6.74 per cent growth in real terms on non-NHS providers, compared to 4.26 per cent growth in the previous year and 1.44 per cent the year before that. NHS for salePrior to the 2012 Health and Social Care Act, passed by the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition, hospitals were only allowed to make 2 per cent of their income from private sources, but with the legislation’s passing the cap was lifted to 49 per cent. This act alone has reduced the amount of bed spaces available for the general public to use and has resulted in for profit organisations getting rich on the back of the NHS as funding is cut hospitals are then in a grab to try and make some of this back. what this has meant is people with money can bypass the NHS queues and end up jumping queues to the detriment of NHS patients and an increase in waiting times for operations. Roger there are many examples of how the NHS is being harmed by this government just do your research !! I'm not sure why I'm doing this because I'm quite busy today but... Link 1 - Universities and research centres selling their findings to the highest bidder. Not the Tories. Link 2 - Most drugs are price regulated some have slipped through "They say that it could be costing the NHS and taxpayers up to an extra £100m per annum"This is not the biggest threat to the NHS by a country mile, treating those that are not entitled to NHS services costs us 2 BILLION per annum. Link 3 - from 2015 reporting on deals done in 2012. The CMA (competition markets authority) "The CMA said that its findings were only “provisional” and do not necessarily mean competition law has been breached. I agree about the system being too top heavy how about this...... and there are hundreds and hundreds of these positions..... £10 billion being spent on private sector providers is just spin. The NHS paid private companies £10 billion because they thought they would get more bang for their buck by outsourcing. Not selling off. Out sourcing contracts which have an end date and then that service returns to NHS ownership. £10 billion is about 4 weeks of the present annual budget of the NHS. The research shows that the idyll of a National Health Service back in 1948 is absolutely not fit for purpose in the 21st Century. You like figures how about these.... "When the NHS was launched in 1948, it had a budget of £437 million (roughly £15 billion at today’s value). For 2015/16, the overall NHS budget was around £116.4 billion. NHS England is managing £101.3 billion of this." - NHS.ukIn 1948-49 the NHS was 3.3% of GDP now it's 9.9%. I know what your going to say, fine lets make it 10.9% or 12.9%, and what happens in another 5 years or 10 years? 15.9% ..... 20.9% ?? THE MODEL IS WRONG. Going 'back' to Matrons is the worst idea possible.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jan 11, 2018 13:24:38 GMT
Here you go, Todge, the not exactly left wing FT with a report on how the NHS improved under Labour. www.ft.com/content/168e1278-2b24-11df-93d8-00144feabdc0Alternatively, try the independent Kings Fund report of 1997-2005: www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/field_publication_file/independent-audit-nhs-under-labour-1997%E2%80%932005-sunday-times-march-2005.pdfI quote from the conclusion section below: Overall, in our view, the results of this audit are very positive. The ambition for the NHS has
been appropriately high. There has been unprecedented investment. There has been significant
improvements in most areas the Government has focused policies on. Has there been a ‘stepchange’
in NHS performance? If step-change means a significant change of gear, with more and
better services, then yes there has.Go on, mention Stafford or PFI, you know you want to! They are the standard comfort blanket responses from the right! It's quite simple. You either fund something properly and the GB olympic team IS a great example you're right, and get improved results, or you watch it decline, which is where we are with the NHS now. You get what you pay for, it really is as simple as that. From the report you posted.... Conclusion on spending..... "What cannot easily be answered are these two questions: has the investment been well spent, and has the investment been enough? Productivity using the currently available measures – activity divided by expenditure – has actually fallen since 1997. On the surface, this suggests that the NHS is getting worse value for money. Yet the measure is flawed because not all activity is counted and increases in the quality of care are not recognised. Without a better measure of productivity, it is not possible to be sure that the additional funds have been well spent. Nor is it possible to come to firm conclusions about what level of spending on the NHS is ‘enough’ – although a level that is close to that of European neighbours (with respect to the proportion of gross domestic product spent) seems reasonable. Verdict: Unprecedented levels of investment, many service improvements but it is possible that money could be better spent." There's no promise that increased spending would improve efficiency nor any evidence that increased spending could be delivered year after year after decade after decade. The other point is what suffered from Blair and Brown's spending spree's on the NHS? Apart from the usual outcome of generation's of debt of course.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jan 11, 2018 13:34:05 GMT
It's quite simple. You either fund something properly and the GB olympic team IS a great example you're right, and get improved results, or you watch it decline, which is where we are with the NHS now. You get what you pay for, it really is as simple as that. It's not that simple if the thing your funding correctly or otherwise is doomed to fail. We use the NHS primarily in our early and elderly years. Statistical fact. So our precious NHS should be shaped like that. Much more provision for elderly care than in any other area. Is it? No. Your Olympic example was great because it proved my point in that Sport UK had to cut funding from some sports to allow others to succeed. A medals against cost balancing act. There was never enough money for every Olympic hopeful to get funded so decisions were made. Gail Emms badminton, remember her? There's no funding for UK badminton in the 2020 Olympics. The list goes on. This is the same in some respects as the NHS tough decisions have to be made on how much each Trust can spend on each treatment or individual case. Your example is daft because unfortunately the NHS doesn't have the luxury in being able to 'drop' certain areas (like badminton) so the money gets spread thinner and thinner and thinner as the population accelerates and people live longer.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jan 11, 2018 16:27:25 GMT
Here you go, Todge, the not exactly left wing FT with a report on how the NHS improved under Labour. www.ft.com/content/168e1278-2b24-11df-93d8-00144feabdc0Alternatively, try the independent Kings Fund report of 1997-2005: www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/field_publication_file/independent-audit-nhs-under-labour-1997%E2%80%932005-sunday-times-march-2005.pdfI quote from the conclusion section below: Overall, in our view, the results of this audit are very positive. The ambition for the NHS has
been appropriately high. There has been unprecedented investment. There has been significant
improvements in most areas the Government has focused policies on. Has there been a ‘stepchange’
in NHS performance? If step-change means a significant change of gear, with more and
better services, then yes there has.Go on, mention Stafford or PFI, you know you want to! They are the standard comfort blanket responses from the right! It's quite simple. You either fund something properly and the GB olympic team IS a great example you're right, and get improved results, or you watch it decline, which is where we are with the NHS now. You get what you pay for, it really is as simple as that. From the report you posted.... Conclusion on spending..... "What cannot easily be answered are these two questions: has the investment been well spent, and has the investment been enough? Productivity using the currently available measures – activity divided by expenditure – has actually fallen since 1997. On the surface, this suggests that the NHS is getting worse value for money. Yet the measure is flawed because not all activity is counted and increases in the quality of care are not recognised. Without a better measure of productivity, it is not possible to be sure that the additional funds have been well spent. Nor is it possible to come to firm conclusions about what level of spending on the NHS is ‘enough’ – although a level that is close to that of European neighbours (with respect to the proportion of gross domestic product spent) seems reasonable. Verdict: Unprecedented levels of investment, many service improvements but it is possible that money could be better spent." There's no promise that increased spending would improve efficiency nor any evidence that increased spending could be delivered year after year after decade after decade. The other point is what suffered from Blair and Brown's spending spree's? Apart from the usual generation's of debt of course. No, that's true. But you won't improve something by not spending money on it. You get what you pay for, simple as that. In all other areas of life bar politics you'd probably agree with that statement. Plus, previous spending did improve it as those reports prove. Of course, that doesn't guarantee it'll improve again, but I'm willing to take that risk based on those previous improvements as a result of increased spending. Seems a sensible position to take based on previous events and the fact that underfunding it, as we are now doing, is making it worse. We're basically reverting back to the position we were in in 1997 when even the Tories now admit the NHS had suffered 18 years of underfunding. Debt and deficit were nothing out of the ordinary under Blair, even while spending on the NHS. Under Brown debt and deficit increased as a result of the financial crisis and recession. Under Cameron and May debt has doubled even during a period of prolonged austerity. The deficit which should have disappeared by 2015 according to George Osborne is still there.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jan 11, 2018 16:42:52 GMT
It's quite simple. You either fund something properly and the GB olympic team IS a great example you're right, and get improved results, or you watch it decline, which is where we are with the NHS now. You get what you pay for, it really is as simple as that. It's not that simple if the thing your funding correctly or otherwise is doomed to fail. We use the NHS primarily in our early and elderly years. Statistical fact. So our precious NHS should be shaped like that. Much more provision for elderly care than in any other area. Is it? No. Your Olympic example was great because it proved my point in that Sport UK had to cut funding from some sports to allow others to succeed. A medals against cost balancing act. There was never enough money for every Olympic hopeful to get funded so decisions were made. Gail Emms badminton, remember her? There's no funding for UK badminton in the 2020 Olympics. The list goes on. This is the same in some respects as the NHS tough decisions have to be made on how much each Trust can spend on each treatment or individual case. Your example is daft because unfortunately the NHS doesn't have the luxury in being able to 'drop' certain areas (like badminton) so the money gets spread thinner and thinner and thinner. There is more funding for elderly care as they are a larger drain on NHS resources, look it up! Two fifths of the NHS budget goes on the over 65s! You're missing the point with the Olympics! Back in 1996, the entire team was so bad we won just one gold medal and came 36th in the medals table. This is because almost everybody was an amateur with amateur levels of funding. Since 1997 we have been funding it properly, and we have improved every Olympics and recently came second in the medals table. By any stretch, that's a significant improvement! All due to increased levels of funding to our athletes. I agree that some sports have been denied funding recently but isn't that the same as targeting funds to certain areas, such as the elderly as already happens as you've advocated above? And overall, performance levels have undeniably improved. Plus, you've kind of made my point with your last sentence. You said the money gets spread thinner and thinner and thinner. Only if you maintain a set level of funding which is precisely what's happening now. Increase funding levels to European levels of contributions and you'll see a marked improvement in performance. Just as we saw with the Olympic team. I think what this boils down to Todge is you either believe in general taxation being used to fund public services properly or you don't. The state trying to make things better for everyone or every man for himself, sink or swim.
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Jan 11, 2018 17:04:54 GMT
I agree with redwhitenblue. We should give more funding to the NHS (We can easily do this by scraping the foreign aid budget) and we should start training & paying decent wages to young British people, rather than hiring cheap foreign nurses who can barely speak English... Doesn't only apply to the NHS either, lets stop this horrendus system of shafting the young of this country by having a never ending supply of cheap foreign labour that only benefits the rich, and instead lets give our young British people a chance of a better life by investing in proper training programs for them. Hell, they might then even earn enough to buy a house, and because we'd have cut down on immigration by having faith in our own young people, there'd be plenty of houses for them to buy.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jan 11, 2018 17:17:25 GMT
Fucking hell, I'm feeling a bit weird with all these people agreeing with me.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jan 11, 2018 17:29:37 GMT
I agree with redwhitenblue. We should give more funding to the NHS (We can easily do this by scraping the foreign aid budget) and we should start training & paying decent wages to young British people, rather than hiring cheap foreign nurses who can barely speak English... Doesn't only apply to the NHS either, lets stop this horrendus system of shafting the young of this country by having a never ending supply of cheap foreign labour that only benefits the rich, and instead lets give our young British people a chance of a better life by investing in proper training programs for them. Hell, they might then even earn enough to buy a house, and because we'd have cut down on immigration by having faith in our own young people, there'd be plenty of houses for them to buy. There is a national minimum wage. Only people who undercut it are unscrupulous bosses.
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Jan 11, 2018 17:51:19 GMT
There is a national minimum wage. Only people who undercut it are unscrupulous bosses. The minimum wage is a joke & should be scraped, but it goes hand-in-hand with out-of-control mass migration. Both are great things if you're a rich business owner, both do you nothing but damage if you're young/poor. We should be investing in the future, the young people of this country, giving them proper training & opportunities which lead to good jobs on good contracts, working in good conditions & for good wages... But instead we trundle along with 'miniumum wages', mass migration, zero hour contracts. Why should any business owner give a shit about their employees when they know full well they can fob them off with shit pay, shit contracts & fuck all chance of advancing themselves, 'cos if they don't like it they can fuck off & they'll get someone from Poland to come do it instead, and if they don't like it they can fuck off too 'cos someone from Romania will come & do it.
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Jan 11, 2018 20:06:05 GMT
There is a national minimum wage. Only people who undercut it are unscrupulous bosses. The minimum wage is a joke & should be scraped, but it goes hand-in-hand with out-of-control mass migration. Both are great things if you're a rich business owner, both do you nothing but damage if you're young/poor. We should be investing in the future, the young people of this country, giving them proper training & opportunities which lead to good jobs on good contracts, working in good conditions & for good wages... But instead we trundle along with 'miniumum wages', mass migration, zero hour contracts. Why should any business owner give a shit about their employees when they know full well they can fob them off with shit pay, shit contracts & fuck all chance of advancing themselves, 'cos if they don't like it they can fuck off & they'll get someone from Poland to come do it instead, and if they don't like it they can fuck off too 'cos someone from Romania will come & do it. Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, tdc, why should any business owner give a shit about their employees when their employees spend all day on the fucking Oatie?
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jan 11, 2018 22:55:31 GMT
It's not that simple if the thing your funding correctly or otherwise is doomed to fail. We use the NHS primarily in our early and elderly years. Statistical fact. So our precious NHS should be shaped like that. Much more provision for elderly care than in any other area. Is it? No. Your Olympic example was great because it proved my point in that Sport UK had to cut funding from some sports to allow others to succeed. A medals against cost balancing act. There was never enough money for every Olympic hopeful to get funded so decisions were made. Gail Emms badminton, remember her? There's no funding for UK badminton in the 2020 Olympics. The list goes on. This is the same in some respects as the NHS tough decisions have to be made on how much each Trust can spend on each treatment or individual case. Your example is daft because unfortunately the NHS doesn't have the luxury in being able to 'drop' certain areas (like badminton) so the money gets spread thinner and thinner and thinner. There is more funding for elderly care as they are a larger drain on NHS resources, look it up! Two fifths of the NHS budget goes on the over 65s! You're missing the point with the Olympics! Back in 1996, the entire team was so bad we won just one gold medal and came 36th in the medals table. This is because almost everybody was an amateur with amateur levels of funding. Since 1997 we have been funding it properly, and we have improved every Olympics and recently came second in the medals table. By any stretch, that's a significant improvement! All due to increased levels of funding to our athletes. I agree that some sports have been denied funding recently but isn't that the same as targeting funds to certain areas, such as the elderly as already happens as you've advocated above? And overall, performance levels have undeniably improved. Plus, you've kind of made my point with your last sentence. You said the money gets spread thinner and thinner and thinner. Only if you maintain a set level of funding which is precisely what's happening now. Increase funding levels to European levels of contributions and you'll see a marked improvement in performance. Just as we saw with the Olympic team. I think what this boils down to Todge is you either believe in general taxation being used to fund public services properly or you don't. The state trying to make things better for everyone or every man for himself, sink or swim. Why the fuck are you still going on about the Olympics? Your example doesn't work when talking about the NHS. Sport UK have to cut funding COMPLETELY to some sports to enable others to flourish. Which NHS departments are you proposing should be closed down for good so others can be successful? Anyway, there's nothing stopping you and Essex and Huddy all sending an extra 2p in every pound you earn to fund the NHS. Just pop a cheque in the post to HMRC. Knock yourselves out. No? Thought not.
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Jan 11, 2018 23:32:36 GMT
There is more funding for elderly care as they are a larger drain on NHS resources, look it up! Two fifths of the NHS budget goes on the over 65s! You're missing the point with the Olympics! Back in 1996, the entire team was so bad we won just one gold medal and came 36th in the medals table. This is because almost everybody was an amateur with amateur levels of funding. Since 1997 we have been funding it properly, and we have improved every Olympics and recently came second in the medals table. By any stretch, that's a significant improvement! All due to increased levels of funding to our athletes. I agree that some sports have been denied funding recently but isn't that the same as targeting funds to certain areas, such as the elderly as already happens as you've advocated above? And overall, performance levels have undeniably improved. Plus, you've kind of made my point with your last sentence. You said the money gets spread thinner and thinner and thinner. Only if you maintain a set level of funding which is precisely what's happening now. Increase funding levels to European levels of contributions and you'll see a marked improvement in performance. Just as we saw with the Olympic team. I think what this boils down to Todge is you either believe in general taxation being used to fund public services properly or you don't. The state trying to make things better for everyone or every man for himself, sink or swim. Why the fuck are you still going on about the Olympics? Your example doesn't work when talking about the NHS. Sport UK have to cut funding COMPLETELY to some sports to enable others to flourish. Which NHS departments are you proposing should be closed down for good so others can be successful? Anyway, there's nothing stopping you and Essex and Huddy all sending an extra 2p in every pound you earn to fund the NHS. Just pop a cheque in the post to HMRC. Knock yourselves out. No? Thought not. Notice that you only include those of us that support social justice in your 2p increase it sums you up totally roger I'm all right Jack sod the rest you are one selfish individual that always thinks of yourself that must make you one horrible individual. bet if someone was ill in the street you'd just walk by. you have shown yourself up for what you and most of the Tory's actually are parasites!! and I speak for myself and I think the others yes weed be willing to pay the extra 1 or 2 p on national insurance for a better health service as long as it was guaranteed to go to the NHS!
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jan 12, 2018 10:59:26 GMT
There is more funding for elderly care as they are a larger drain on NHS resources, look it up! Two fifths of the NHS budget goes on the over 65s! You're missing the point with the Olympics! Back in 1996, the entire team was so bad we won just one gold medal and came 36th in the medals table. This is because almost everybody was an amateur with amateur levels of funding. Since 1997 we have been funding it properly, and we have improved every Olympics and recently came second in the medals table. By any stretch, that's a significant improvement! All due to increased levels of funding to our athletes. I agree that some sports have been denied funding recently but isn't that the same as targeting funds to certain areas, such as the elderly as already happens as you've advocated above? And overall, performance levels have undeniably improved. Plus, you've kind of made my point with your last sentence. You said the money gets spread thinner and thinner and thinner. Only if you maintain a set level of funding which is precisely what's happening now. Increase funding levels to European levels of contributions and you'll see a marked improvement in performance. Just as we saw with the Olympic team. I think what this boils down to Todge is you either believe in general taxation being used to fund public services properly or you don't. The state trying to make things better for everyone or every man for himself, sink or swim. Why the fuck are you still going on about the Olympics? Your example doesn't work when talking about the NHS. Sport UK have to cut funding COMPLETELY to some sports to enable others to flourish. Which NHS departments are you proposing should be closed down for good so others can be successful? Anyway, there's nothing stopping you and Essex and Huddy all sending an extra 2p in every pound you earn to fund the NHS. Just pop a cheque in the post to HMRC. Knock yourselves out. No? Thought not. Of course it works! Simple question, how did we go from 36th to 2nd in the medal table? Nobody's talking about shutting down parts of the NHS apart from you, Todge, for some reason. It's about providing proper funding overall and then targeting it where its needed as per your wishes above. We can reduce or remove funding from badminton because its just fucking badminton, who cares, its just a sport! No-one's gonna die! But that's not going to happen in any world other than Todge-world with the NHS. That ddoesn't alter two facts - the NHS improved last time we increased funding on it and our olympic team improved when we started funding it properly. I'm not sure why you have a problem with this - surely you agree with the statement you get what you pay for. We didnt fund our Olympic team, they were shit, we're not really funding the nhs now, its shit. Pretty obvious really. The real question is how do you persuade people to vote for higher taxes at an election because thats when all the good intentions of raising tax to fund public services (70% agree with this) goes out the window (or voting booth!) And if we all sent an extra 2p in the pound, we wouldn't be having this debate at all, because the NHS would be fine. So thank you for making my point for me about proper funding!
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jan 12, 2018 12:49:03 GMT
You didn't see Andrew Neil having to apologise afterwards then? This has been done 1000 times. He didn't say it, however often someone who can't be arsed to research it says he did. Hey Momo perhaps you best contact Andrew Neil and tell him he apologised he doesn't seem aware of it
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jan 12, 2018 13:09:32 GMT
Why the fuck are you still going on about the Olympics? Your example doesn't work when talking about the NHS. Sport UK have to cut funding COMPLETELY to some sports to enable others to flourish. Which NHS departments are you proposing should be closed down for good so others can be successful? Anyway, there's nothing stopping you and Essex and Huddy all sending an extra 2p in every pound you earn to fund the NHS. Just pop a cheque in the post to HMRC. Knock yourselves out. No? Thought not. Of course it works! Simple question, how did we go from 36th to 2nd in the medal table? Nobody's talking about shutting down parts of the NHS apart from you, Todge, for some reason. It's about providing proper funding overall and then targeting it where its needed as per your wishes above. We can reduce or remove funding from badminton because its just fucking badminton, who cares, its just a sport! No-one's gonna die! But that's not going to happen in any world other than Todge-world with the NHS. That ddoesn't alter two facts - the NHS improved last time we increased funding on it and our olympic team improved when we started funding it properly. I'm not sure why you have a problem with this - surely you agree with the statement you get what you pay for. We didnt fund our Olympic team, they were shit, we're not really funding the nhs now, its shit. Pretty obvious really. The real question is how do you persuade people to vote for higher taxes at an election because thats when all the good intentions of raising tax to fund public services (70% agree with this) goes out the window (or voting booth!) And if we all sent an extra 2p in the pound, we wouldn't be having this debate at all, because the NHS would be fine. So thank you for making my point for me about proper funding! You're an imbecile. Your great theory is "you get what you pay for". Really? Is that it? That logic will save the NHS? How about this. We paid 18.2 million pounds and we got Imbula. We got what we paid for right so everything must have worked out fine
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jan 12, 2018 13:12:59 GMT
Why the fuck are you still going on about the Olympics? Your example doesn't work when talking about the NHS. Sport UK have to cut funding COMPLETELY to some sports to enable others to flourish. Which NHS departments are you proposing should be closed down for good so others can be successful? Anyway, there's nothing stopping you and Essex and Huddy all sending an extra 2p in every pound you earn to fund the NHS. Just pop a cheque in the post to HMRC. Knock yourselves out. No? Thought not. Notice that you only include those of us that support social justice in your 2p increase it sums you up totally roger I'm all right Jack sod the rest you are one selfish individual that always thinks of yourself that must make you one horrible individual. bet if someone was ill in the street you'd just walk by. you have shown yourself up for what you and most of the Tory's actually are parasites!! and I speak for myself and I think the others yes weed be willing to pay the extra 1 or 2 p on national insurance for a better health service as long as it was guaranteed to go to the NHS! Give your money direct to your local NHS Trust. They'll take it I'm sure. Don't forget to post a pic or it didn't happen.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jan 12, 2018 13:40:45 GMT
Of course it works! Simple question, how did we go from 36th to 2nd in the medal table? Nobody's talking about shutting down parts of the NHS apart from you, Todge, for some reason. It's about providing proper funding overall and then targeting it where its needed as per your wishes above. We can reduce or remove funding from badminton because its just fucking badminton, who cares, its just a sport! No-one's gonna die! But that's not going to happen in any world other than Todge-world with the NHS. That ddoesn't alter two facts - the NHS improved last time we increased funding on it and our olympic team improved when we started funding it properly. I'm not sure why you have a problem with this - surely you agree with the statement you get what you pay for. We didnt fund our Olympic team, they were shit, we're not really funding the nhs now, its shit. Pretty obvious really. The real question is how do you persuade people to vote for higher taxes at an election because thats when all the good intentions of raising tax to fund public services (70% agree with this) goes out the window (or voting booth!) And if we all sent an extra 2p in the pound, we wouldn't be having this debate at all, because the NHS would be fine. So thank you for making my point for me about proper funding! You're an imbecile. Your great theory is "you get what you pay for". Really? Is that it? That logic will save the NHS? How about this. We paid 18.2 million pounds and we got Imbula. We got what we paid for right so everything must have worked out fine Lol, you keep picking silly examples and thinking that makes the whole argument! Re Imbula - let's get rid of Premier League money and see where that leaves us lol. I'm guessing that not all NHS treatments are successful either but do they then say sorry, no more money spent on treatment for you! Your argument is basically the same one every rightwinger always produces - because mistakes are made and money is sometimes wasted (Imbula; unsuccessful treatments) therefore no more money is needed and its all about efficiency. It's complete nonsense. You've basically made my point for me yet again lol. Yes, not all Stoke signings have been a success, but overall we've spent more and guess what we've been in the Prem for a decade. Ask anyone whether they think Man City have improved by spending money! Ask them if every transfer has been a success during that period! Yes, you get what you pay for, simple as that. Stoke and Man City, perfect examples of that. Bravo, Todge, bravo lol, this ain't going well for you!
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jan 12, 2018 14:04:21 GMT
Time for a recap, Todge.
So far, we've seen that Labour spent money on the NHS and it improved. A long way from perfect, but it improved according to independent analysis.
Stoke have spent lots of money since 2007 and been promoted and stayed in the Prem for ten years. Again its not perfect especially this season, some transfers have been good others not so, but overall weve improved from 15 years ago.
Man City have spent shitloads since the Arabs took over and have won the Prem twice and look like that'll be three this year. FA Cup and League Cups along the way too. Again, its not perfect, havent been a success with every transfer nor won the CL but overall theyve improved from 15 years ago.
Which bit of this do you struggle with lol.
Yep, you get what you pay for, simple as that!
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jan 12, 2018 14:21:20 GMT
Time for a recap, Todge. So far, we've seen that Labour spent money on the NHS and it improved. A long way from perfect, but it improved according to independent analysis. Stoke have spent lots of money since 2007 and been promoted and stayed in the Prem for ten years. Again its not perfect especially this season, some transfers have been good others not so, but overall weve improved from 15 years ago. Man City have spent shitloads since the Arabs took over and have won the Prem twice and look like that'll be three this year. FA Cup and League Cups along the way too. Again, its not perfect, havent been a success with every transfer nor won the CL but overall theyve improved from 15 years ago. Which bit of this do you struggle with lol. Yep, you get what you pay for, simple as that! Like I said. An imbecile. The Kings report you posted claimed success but couldn't prove it was value for money, didn't mention if that level of spending could realistically continue generation after generation and it didn't research if increased funding in the NHS meant other services suffered. Apart from that it was mustard. So you think the present model of funding in the Premier League is sustainable? 150 million pound players, 200 million pound players, 300K a week salaries? You don't see the highest turnover of managers, English youth not getting a proper chance, the National team diminishing and greedy agents spoiling a game that should be shared by everyone? Your solution is more money. Even more money. What could wrong eh? You get what you pay for.
|
|