UK Politics: Winter of Discontent

[SeanF]

On ‎1‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 9:21 PM, Werthead said:

The risk of a governmental collapse and a snap election remains real (although not inevitable), so Labour really need to have a clear position if that takes place. Being caught floundering and spending several weeks of an election campaign working out what their Brexit position actually is, is no help to anyone, least of all Labour themselves.

Given Corbyn's voting record, it's reasonable to assume that he is in favour of Brexit.

[SeanF]

15 hours ago, Spockydog said:

Rubbing my hands with glee at the prospect of these three twats leading the Tories.

There is such a thing as being careful what you wish for.  I thought that Labour would lose seats, when Jeremy Corbyn was chosen as leader, and that Donald Trump would lose in 2016.

[Spockydog]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

There is such a thing as being careful what you wish for.  I thought that Labour would lose seats, when Jeremy Corbyn was chosen as leader, and that Donald Trump would lose in 2016.

What I'm really hoping for is Rees-Mogg as leader. Can't wait to see what a post-austerity, post-Grenfell Britain thinks of another smarmy, double-barrelled posho who names his son Sixtus Dominic Boniface.

[SeanF]

25 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

What I'm really hoping for is Rees-Mogg as leader. Can't wait to see what a post-austerity, post-Grenfell Britain thinks of another smarmy, double-barrelled posho who names his son Sixtus Dominic Boniface.

I think it's unlikely that he will get the job.  But public opinion has now become very hard to predict. The Blairite/soft Conservative/Orange Book Liberal consensus from the early nineties to 2015 has well and truly ended.

[Which Tyler]

Trump takes a shot at Britain's NHS:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42943768

 

Out of his two points, he's almost there on one of them - the NHS is very nearly broke - due to conservative clowns chronically underfunding it for the last 8 years with the specific aim of breaking it, and selling it on to the private sector; but he's absolutely wrong that it's failing anyway... for now.

[Spockydog]

1 hour ago, Which Tyler said:

Trump takes a shot at Britain's NHS:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42943768

 

Out of his two points, he's almost there on one of them - the NHS is very nearly broke - due to conservative clowns chronically underfunding it for the last 8 years with the specific aim of breaking it, and selling it on to the private sector; but he's absolutely wrong that it's failing anyway... for now.

Worked pretty well for me when they literally saved my life following a heart attack last summer.

ETA: And my life-saving treatment didn't cost me a penny, nor will my upcoming quadrupole bypass surgery. 

[lessthanluke]

On the one hand it took me 9 months from initial appointment to get an assessment to diagnose my severe sleep aponea which is completely ridiculous and unacceptable but on the other hand it's free sooo. I have actually just started paying for private medical insurance because our waiting times are too much for me.

[Which Tyler]

Yep NHS is basically broke (thanks Jeremy C!).

It's still absolutely fantastic at anything life-threatening, but increasingly poor at qualit-of-life stuff.

Quite rightly too, after all, which is more important, and in greater need of care? If you had to choose between treating the sleep apnea and treating the heart attack?

[Pebble thats Stubby]

2 hours ago, lessthanluke said:

On the one hand it took me 9 months from initial appointment to get an assessment to diagnose my severe sleep aponea which is completely ridiculous and unacceptable but on the other hand it's free sooo. I have actually just started paying for private medical insurance because our waiting times are too much for me.

 

You need to be very careful when going private.   Its normally safe to go private to jump the consultancy queue, but if your treatment is private you will be liable for the full costs of treatment of that condition for as long as the condition lasts.        Its the no-top up thing to stop a 2 tier health service.

[lessthanluke]

2 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

Yep NHS is basically broke (thanks Jeremy C!).

It's still absolutely fantastic at anything life-threatening, but increasingly poor at qualit-of-life stuff.

Quite rightly too, after all, which is more important, and in greater need of care? If you had to choose between treating the sleep apnea and treating the heart attack?

Well the sleep aponea is life threatening albeit not as much as the heart attack.

Well considering my follow up appointment took a total of 10 minutes I feel like waiting 9 months for this was a bit of a piss take considering the Dr in the initial appointment stressed how serious an issue it was but I digress this is just me being grumpy.

[Which Tyler]

There's nothing wrong with a good grump - especially in the lead-up to England vs Wales

[Werthead]

On 06/02/2018 at 9:40 AM, lessthanluke said:

On the one hand it took me 9 months from initial appointment to get an assessment to diagnose my severe sleep aponea which is completely ridiculous and unacceptable but on the other hand it's free sooo. I have actually just started paying for private medical insurance because our waiting times are too much for me.

I'm sorry to hear that, but that is the result of the government not funding the NHS according to its needs, not because public healthcare has some kind of inherent weakness to it (which was Trump's point, because he's an idiot).

[lessthanluke]

14 hours ago, Werthead said:

I'm sorry to hear that, but that is the result of the government not funding the NHS according to its needs, not because public healthcare has some kind of inherent weakness to it (which was Trump's point, because he's an idiot).

Oh I know that, still frustrating though

When I was talking to the nurse while waiting she was telling me that basically 2 people run the whole sleep clinic thing in my area which obviously explains the backlog! 

[lessthanluke]

On 06/02/2018 at 2:11 PM, Which Tyler said:

There's nothing wrong with a good grump - especially in the lead-up to England vs Wales

Truth. Biggest week of the year.

[Spockydog]

1 hour ago, lessthanluke said:

Oh I know that, still frustrating though

When I was talking to the nurse while waiting she was telling me that basically 2 people run the whole sleep clinic thing in my area which obviously explains the backlog! 

That sucks, man. Other than my heart, I've got another long-running issue that I've been waiting to have dealt with for some time now. It's really frustrating. But when shit got real for me, the NHS was nothing less than amazing.

I started having pains between my shoulder blades at about 9pm on a Saturday night. Went to bed feeling really weird. Felt progressively worse through the night. Googled my symptoms at 6am, called 999.

The ambulance arrived in five minutes. The paramedics said they were going to take me to North Middlesex Hospital. I begged them not to. So they put me in the ambo, hooked me up to the ECG so they could get actual confirmation I was having a heart attack. Then it was off to The Royal Free in Hampstead, who have a specialist cardiology unit. On the way there my heart stopped beating. Dude revived me. Arrived at Royal Free and was wheeled straight into a room like something out of a scifi movie, with a whole team of people waiting to receive me. Consultant Cardiologist said, 'Mr Clarke, Welcome to the Laboratory.' Twenty minutes later I have a tube up my arm and a camera looking inside my heart. One valve, they tell me, is completely blocked, and the other three are not looking good. I'm gonna need bypass surgery, but in the meantime, here's a stent. Felt better immediately, and I spent the next five days in hospital.

The care I received was exceptional, from a whole bunch of amazing people, who are most definitely not in it for the money.

I will be eternally grateful to the NHS, to the people who saved my life.

 

[Yukle]

On 2/8/2018 at 6:02 AM, Werthead said:

I'm sorry to hear that, but that is the result of the government not funding the NHS according to its needs, not because public healthcare has some kind of inherent weakness to it (which was Trump's point, because he's an idiot).

Wait times are not magically shorter in private systems anyway. They're not necessarily better funded, since they also need to turn a profit. There is increased likelihood of getting a prompt service, but it is not a certain bet.

You're right: healthcare is generally underfunded.

[The Anti-Targ]

On 2/8/2018 at 8:02 AM, Werthead said:

I'm sorry to hear that, but that is the result of the government not funding the NHS according to its needs, not because public healthcare has some kind of inherent weakness to it (which was Trump's point, because he's an idiot).

I guess the argument, by those on the right, goes something along the lines of the funding required to deliver a good quality public health system is so high that it would be financially crippling for the govt and the taxpayer. Hence this is an inherent weakness of public healthcare. Which is why there aren't many (any?) gold plated, or even silver plated, public health systems in the world, and even in countries with decent public health systems the private / health insurance sector is a necessary part of the whole system. With people going private or using insurance their taxes are being used to pay for someone else's healthcare and they are paying out of pocket or through insurance premiums.

[Yukle]

3 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I guess the argument, by those on the right, goes something along the lines of the funding required to deliver a good quality public health system is so high that it would be financially crippling for the govt and the taxpayer. Hence this is an inherent weakness of public healthcare. Which is why there aren't many (any?) gold plated, or even silver plated, public health systems in the world, and even in countries with decent public health systems the private / health insurance sector is a necessary part of the whole system. With people going private or using insurance their taxes are being used to pay for someone else's healthcare and they are paying out of pocket or through insurance premiums.

The entire argument falls down really easily for one simple reason:

Systems don't care where the money comes from. There is either enough or there is too little. Right-wing nuts want tax cuts. They are personally wealthy enough to pay for their own health needs and don't want to share.

There is nothing other than greed underlying the idea.

[The Anti-Targ]

4 minutes ago, Yukle said:

The entire argument falls down really easily for one simple reason:

Systems don't care where the money comes from. There is either enough or there is too little. Right-wing nuts want tax cuts. They are personally wealthy enough to pay for their own health needs and don't want to share.

There is nothing other than greed underlying the idea.

To some extent the system does care where the money comes from, because the source of the money determines the destination. If the money is private (directly or via insurance) then the money stays within one part of the system, which is isolated from the public part of the system. So one part of the system can be starving while the other one is able to deliver services to the satisfaction of its patients. The total funding may in fact be adequate to meet all needs, but the uneven distribution distorts service delivery. But it's probably the case that even if all the private and public money was evenly distributed through the whole system, there wouldn't be enough to deliver the sort of health care system that most people would regard as sufficient.

It does seem like people don't mind paying a lot of tax when its called insurance, but they hate paying insurance when it's called tax.

How much of one's taxes goes into the healthcare system and how does that compare with full cover health insurance?

[Yukle]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

To some extent the system does care where the money comes from, because the source of the money determines the destination. If the money is private (directly or via insurance) then the money stays within one part of the system, which is isolated from the public part of the system.

That's if two systems run concurrently, rather than in tandem. You can setup a system however you want it to be. If public and private systems receive exactly equal funding and it is then used in exactly the same way, they'll both be exactly the same. In reality, private systems are less efficient because they also have to turn a profit, and therefore they cost more to run.