The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[red1]

It also ignores that as long as no one is being charged for healthcare within the NHS then the number of contracts that have been awarded privately is a pretty pointless number and might actually serve to alleviate some of the pressure that will eventually cause the NHS to get to a point where they will have to charge people for healthcare...

That's correct but I think what they mean is that if the NHS is restructured to cater to an increasing number of private tenders it will get to a point where you could implement an insurance-style healthcare system quite literally at the drop of a hat which is true. Also, whatever you think of the NHS and the Conservatives, they can technically be seen as a threat to the NHS as it is exists now because of the impending TTIP deal which Labour and the Lib Dems at least said they would oppose.

 

[roydo]

That's correct but I think what they mean is that if the NHS is restructured to cater to an increasing number of private tenders it will get to a point where you could implement an insurance-style healthcare system quite literally at the drop of a hat which is true. Also, whatever you think of the NHS and the Conservatives, they can technically be seen as a threat to the NHS as it is exists now because of the impending TTIP deal which Labour and the Lib Dems at least said they would oppose.

Dont even know what that is, so I will pipe right down now.

 

[red1]

Dont even know what that is, so I will pipe right down now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/01/ttip-eu-us-trade-deal_n_5747088.html

 

[harris78]

Not wishing to deny the cuts (made necessary by Labour's financial mismanagement, lest we forget), but this whole foodbank thing is the anti-Tory barometer of choice. Foodbanks have always been around, but have never been as publicized as much as they are right now. And so more people use them.

With regards to the survey only 900 people from a reported 900,000 had any input as to why they use a food bank. Only 40 over these had in depth interviews to find the root cause. That's 1 percent with which the findings of the report and newspaper article are being based on. From these 900 it was found there were numerous reasons why the food bank had to be used and they ranged from benefits cuts, mental health issues, job loss and breakdowns in families. Not all of these issues can be blamed on the Tories. That's not to say that a certain percentage will be through tax cuts and benefit reforms but lets not be blinkered to think that if Labour or whoever come into power, when benefit reforms come about as sure as they will, there will be winners and losers again within the public.

 

[tsubaki]

Emily Thornberry has resigned over this.

Utter incompetence is not really strong enough a phrase.

 

[Coach]

Yeah, sure, but you kind of weaken your arguing position by being nakedly anti anything Tory. Which in itself is fine. But when faced with facts or opinions that dont support your view, there seems to be little point in having a grown up debate.

"Boris Johnson Tax Avoider". Not in the UK. Asked about Livingstones tax deatils. Nothing.
"Tories aiding tax avoiders" Wrong. In so many ways.
"Private spending up 1% in NHS England over 4 years" Nothing, other than they do it 22 times more in Scotland.

Hmmmm. Since you wish to itemise things:

"Boris Johnson Tax Avoider". Not in the UK. Asked about Livingstones tax deatils. Nothing. - you didn't ask anything, you merely stated it would be interesting to see Ken Livingstones affairs - what am I supposed to answer?

"Tories aiding tax avoiders" Wrong. In so many ways. - Firstly, I have not said that. Second, is this your idea of grown up debate? Third, I gave you two links to two different articles which show the Tory acheivements on tax avoidance - you on the other hand have provided no evidence at all to support your counter position.

"Private spending up 1% in NHS England over 4 years" Nothing, other than they do it 22 times more in Scotland. - I really don't get how on earth you think there is anything to answer when you make a statement rather than ask a question. Moreover, your statement bears no relation or relevance to the conflict of interest point.

 

[toffee matt]

Ukip are on course to win Rochester.

Labour shadow minister has quit over "house with flags picture gate "

 

[Coach]

A single fact in isolation is just as bad as the misleading facts you are talking about as you are still manipulating correct data to your own views. Do you have the numbers for previous 10 years (as would provide a good comparison between labour and tory) as this would be interesting.

It also ignores that as long as no one is being charged for healthcare within the NHS then the number of contracts that have been awarded privately is a pretty pointless number and might actually serve to alleviate some of the pressure that will eventually cause the NHS to get to a point where they will have to charge people for healthcare...

Well no it isn't pointless since the money being paid to the private companies includes an element of profit for them.

I fundamentally object to these companies making money out of human suffering.

It also means that there is less money in the pot for actual treatment. It is all very well to say 'as long as it is free at the point of consumption' but the services actually have to be offered in the first place. Reducing the services offered in order to keep those remaining free is not the same thing as maintaining the NHS as a free service.

Furthermore, whilst the Tories like to spin a line that they have protected the NHS, the reality is that on a per capita basis NHS spending has been cut since the Tories came to power.

 

[sd_1992]

Well no it isn't pointless since the money being paid to the private companies includes an element of profit for them.

I fundamentally object to these companies making money out of human suffering.

It also means that there is less money in the pot for actual treatment. It is all very well to say 'as long as it is free at the point of consumption' but the services actually have to be offered in the first place. Reducing the services offered in order to keep those remaining them free is not the same thing as maintaining the NHS as a free service.

I genuinely don't even know where to begin with the bit in bold... So you would like the closure of all Pharmacuetical companies, any company who make bandages etc... on the grounds that they make profit from illness...? That has to be one of the most idiotic things I have ever read on this forum including every matchday thread.

And there is absolutely no reducing of services, the companies that get these contracts do exactly the same thing as the NHS would if they won the contract and do not charge people that get treated via them. As long as the bidding process is fair and above board then there is literally no detriment to the average NHS user. If a private company can provide the same service for less, or a better service for the same cost as the NHS then it would be irresponsible not to let them.

We will never have a privatised health system where we get insurance etc for the sole reason that it would be political suicide for any government that implemented it.

 

[Coach]

I genuinely don't even know where to begin with the bit in bold... So you would like the closure of all Pharmacuetical companies, any company who make bandages etc... on the grounds that they make profit from illness...? That has to be one of the most idiotic things I have ever read on this forum including every matchday thread.

Did I say that?

And there is absolutely no reducing of services, the companies that get these contracts do exactly the same thing as the NHS would if they won the contract and do not charge people that get treated via them.

In bold bit : Really? Here is just one example

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...es-dangerously-close-to-collapse-9667370.html

Other bit : of course they charge people - they charge them via taxation which is how the NHS is paid for.

As long as the bidding process is fair and above board then there is literally no detriment to the average NHS user.

Hmm well there's the rub isn't it. You see that's where that nasty old 'conflict of interest' arises again with many GPs and CCGs being linked to the services they are purchasing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21772143

 

[sd_1992]

Did I say that?

You said they shouldn't be allowed to make profit from treating people so yes, that is exactly what you said.

Can you explain what is the difference between the NHS getting a contract and a private company getting the same contract? Or is it just that the big bad companies are evil so shouldn't be allowed to, because last time i checked we seem to be getting a new news story every week about how crap the treatment of patients is by the NHS...

People like you will end of privatising the NHS far quicker than a few companies getting contracts to provide the same service as the NHS does. When the NHS runs out of money and is forced to start cutting its services, and people have to start paying for those services from private companies will it have been worth it to keep your politically motivated views?

 

[harris78]

Did I say that?


In bold bit : Really?

Other bit : of course they charge people - they charge them via taxation which is how the NHS is paid for.


Hmm well there's the rub isn't it. You see that's where that nasty old 'conflict of interest' arises again with many GPs and CCGs being linked to the services they are purchasing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21772143

Well i'm all for the Clinical commissioning groups. At least it gets the NHS out of the hands of bureaucrats and into the hands of clinicians, which in turn should create and generate some creative thinking.

 

[Coach]

You said they shouldn't be allowed to make profit from treating people so yes, that is exactly what you said.

Try reading what I wrote again and this time don't overlay it with your own additional input. Nowhere have I said I would like the closure of all Pharmacuetical companies, any company who make bandages etc. - that is your spin.

 

[Coach]

Can you explain what is the difference between the NHS getting a contract and a private company getting the same contract? Or is it just that the big bad companies are evil so shouldn't be allowed to, because last time i checked we seem to be getting a new news story every week about how crap the treatment of patients is by the NHS...

I explained that above. Go back to the bit about profit.

 

[sd_1992]

Try reading what I wrote again and this time don't overlay it with your own additional input. Nowhere have I said I would like the closure of all Pharmacuetical companies, any company who make bandages etc. - that is your spin.

Read what I said again. You said:

"Well no it isn't pointless since the money being paid to the private companies includes an element of profit for them.

I fundamentally object to these companies making money out of human suffering."

In the context of a private company making a profit of the treatment of sick people. Explain to me how that is any different to a Pharma company developing a drug to make someone healthy and selling it at a profit, because it is exactly the same thing.