Balanced Question Time panel tonight - of course not!
Discussion
ITP said:
Always wondered why all sorts of reasons are debated as to why the NHS is in the position it is in, but no-one ever mentions costs attributed to non uk passport holders as a percentage and how, if at all, this has changed in recent times. Is it 90/10?, 70/30? Does anyone know? No doubt someone will be along soon to call me a racist bigot for even wondering, but it would be interesting to know.
But as has already been said, political tinkering every change of government makes for enormous waste which doesn't help at all.
I don't have the figures but am pretty sure they've been posted on here. And also reasonably comfy that the amounts are small and probably offset by the number of our nationals getting treated abroad.But as has already been said, political tinkering every change of government makes for enormous waste which doesn't help at all.
I also wouldn't call you a racist bigot either. To be honest, it would seem straightforward to insist on insurance being provided before anything other than emergency treatment like many other countries. Even if the amounts are small, when we're in the state we're in, every little helps.
The bigger problems for the NHS are its efficiency and, IMO, that we are trying to treat too many things for too many people.
It needs to be set an affordable budget, emergency care being "ring fenced" within that and then any surplus should be used for providing a standard set of treatments irrespective of where people live.
I'm pretty sure we'll have figures galore on the most common, most successful, most etc etc treatments, typical volumes and costs of them. It shouldn't be hard to work out a list and simply say no to everything else.
Broccers said:
On the subject of employment of disabled folk am I the only person thinking the minimum wage should not apply.?
As they mentioned at the end it centres around the word 'worth' (and specifically worth less vs worthless).Some people are objective and are talking about literally being 'worth less', others spend their whole time wrapped up in the emotive angle of everything and only hear 'worthless'. Unfortunately most these days (especially bleeding heart liberals) only understand latter. Someone saying that someone is 'worth less' to them means that they're saying that they're a 'piece of s
t', when in reality they literally mean they're 'worth.... less' in terms of value they can create for an employer.In all this the definition of disabled is pretty broad, a programmer with leg problems is certainly not worth less than one without.
Northern Munkee said:
WAHEY Eagle looking like a complete berk. And even the audience see her for what she is. Points scoring Hypocrite.
Earlier Angela Eagle was complaining about the Govt failing to get a grip on immigration. Yes. Angela Eagle. Angela fEdited by Northern Munkee on Thursday 16th October 23:41
king Eagle!Esseesse said:
Broccers said:
On the subject of employment of disabled folk am I the only person thinking the minimum wage should not apply.?
As they mentioned at the end it centres around the word 'worth' (and specifically worth less vs worthless).Some people are objective and are talking about literally being 'worth less', others spend their whole time wrapped up in the emotive angle of everything and only hear 'worthless'. Unfortunately most these days (especially bleeding heart liberals) only understand latter. Someone saying that someone is 'worth less' to them means that they're saying that they're a 'piece of s
t', when in reality they literally mean they're 'worth.... less' in terms of value they can create for an employer.In all this the definition of disabled is pretty broad, a programmer with leg problems is certainly not worth less than one without.
My brother is one of the least discriminatory people around. He did however call time on an interview with a disabled woman who was blind wanting to work in his office. The software he would have needed to install just wasn't viable. That may have been being discriminatory or it may have been sound business sense.
He had a woman who had mobility issues - she walked on crutches - great woman lively bubbly and funny. He just put her in the downstairs office on the desk nearest the exit door (in case of fire evacuation) she was nicknamed "sticks" great woman.
Then there was the girl with the speech impediment would have been painful (but not impossible) to have her answering the phone. She was totally brilliant and accurate on data entry, spreadsheets, dealing with written complaints, he gave her a whirl at it she did great.
e did a group office meeting when he took her on with the other staff before she started and basically said "look ladies there will be issues with her on the phones but we are going to work round that " or words to that effect. She started did well after a week they tried her answering customer enquiries. She got some rather impatient people who just assumed she was "thick" and asked for someone else. It got her down it added an extra "layer" to dealing with enquries/ complaints. Had an open chat with her she was happy not to do it. The other staff were happy as whilst she wasn't answering the phones she was blinding fast at the data, typing etc. End result it just worked out.
Now going back to the minister who made the comments in a way I sort of see some of the point - its being discussed/ argued in another thread anyway, I see some disabled people doing voluntary work in charity shops presumably for zilch some seem happy and feel more part of society. The danger is simply exploitation and is it a slippery slope etc.
He had a woman who had mobility issues - she walked on crutches - great woman lively bubbly and funny. He just put her in the downstairs office on the desk nearest the exit door (in case of fire evacuation) she was nicknamed "sticks" great woman.
Then there was the girl with the speech impediment would have been painful (but not impossible) to have her answering the phone. She was totally brilliant and accurate on data entry, spreadsheets, dealing with written complaints, he gave her a whirl at it she did great.
e did a group office meeting when he took her on with the other staff before she started and basically said "look ladies there will be issues with her on the phones but we are going to work round that " or words to that effect. She started did well after a week they tried her answering customer enquiries. She got some rather impatient people who just assumed she was "thick" and asked for someone else. It got her down it added an extra "layer" to dealing with enquries/ complaints. Had an open chat with her she was happy not to do it. The other staff were happy as whilst she wasn't answering the phones she was blinding fast at the data, typing etc. End result it just worked out.
Now going back to the minister who made the comments in a way I sort of see some of the point - its being discussed/ argued in another thread anyway, I see some disabled people doing voluntary work in charity shops presumably for zilch some seem happy and feel more part of society. The danger is simply exploitation and is it a slippery slope etc.
Reasons why NHS spending is increasing at a higher rate than inflation and should do
1. We are and have been in the last 8 years been going through a baby boom
2. Average mortality rates are increasing notably
3. self inflicted issues - weight drugs alcohol etc is massively on the increase
4. Costs of medication is increasing hugely - specialist treatments rocketing
6. Immigration
7. Overall population increased from c55m to c63m and really powering ahead.
8. Impact of no Public sector final salary pension fund means currently the cash outflows are in total for public sector £12billion 2011/12 year more than payments received - this is growing due to longer life and also due to the fact labour drastically increased salaries during the 1997-2008 era for all the workforce - now it would have coped if it were left for inflationary increases but what they did ( wrong or right) was to have the side effect of a monumental gap
So crudely we should work out the £/population to be budgeted and increase due to volume increase but then also consider new treatments.
In addition really we will have to pay more taxes for it either directly or further cuts elsewhere - in addition to efficiency.
Same with schools higher population = build more schools or extend existing you cannot not do anything + schools budget has to increase accordingly.
I'd say same goes for Police and Firemen.
1. We are and have been in the last 8 years been going through a baby boom
2. Average mortality rates are increasing notably
3. self inflicted issues - weight drugs alcohol etc is massively on the increase
4. Costs of medication is increasing hugely - specialist treatments rocketing
6. Immigration
7. Overall population increased from c55m to c63m and really powering ahead.
8. Impact of no Public sector final salary pension fund means currently the cash outflows are in total for public sector £12billion 2011/12 year more than payments received - this is growing due to longer life and also due to the fact labour drastically increased salaries during the 1997-2008 era for all the workforce - now it would have coped if it were left for inflationary increases but what they did ( wrong or right) was to have the side effect of a monumental gap
So crudely we should work out the £/population to be budgeted and increase due to volume increase but then also consider new treatments.
In addition really we will have to pay more taxes for it either directly or further cuts elsewhere - in addition to efficiency.
Same with schools higher population = build more schools or extend existing you cannot not do anything + schools budget has to increase accordingly.
I'd say same goes for Police and Firemen.
Welshbeef said:
Reasons why NHS spending is increasing at a higher rate than inflation and should do
1. We are and have been in the last 8 years been going through a baby boom
2. Average mortality rates are increasing notably
3. self inflicted issues - weight drugs alcohol etc is massively on the increase
4. Costs of medication is increasing hugely - specialist treatments rocketing
6. Immigration
7. Overall population increased from c55m to c63m and really powering ahead.
8. Impact of no Public sector final salary pension fund means currently the cash outflows are in total for public sector £12billion 2011/12 year more than payments received - this is growing due to longer life and also due to the fact labour drastically increased salaries during the 1997-2008 era for all the workforce - now it would have coped if it were left for inflationary increases but what they did ( wrong or right) was to have the side effect of a monumental gap
So crudely we should work out the £/population to be budgeted and increase due to volume increase but then also consider new treatments.
In addition really we will have to pay more taxes for it either directly or further cuts elsewhere - in addition to efficiency.
Same with schools higher population = build more schools or extend existing you cannot not do anything + schools budget has to increase accordingly.
I'd say same goes for Police and Firemen.
Yes, because all three of those services are being run as efficiently and productively as possible, aren't they?1. We are and have been in the last 8 years been going through a baby boom
2. Average mortality rates are increasing notably
3. self inflicted issues - weight drugs alcohol etc is massively on the increase
4. Costs of medication is increasing hugely - specialist treatments rocketing
6. Immigration
7. Overall population increased from c55m to c63m and really powering ahead.
8. Impact of no Public sector final salary pension fund means currently the cash outflows are in total for public sector £12billion 2011/12 year more than payments received - this is growing due to longer life and also due to the fact labour drastically increased salaries during the 1997-2008 era for all the workforce - now it would have coped if it were left for inflationary increases but what they did ( wrong or right) was to have the side effect of a monumental gap
So crudely we should work out the £/population to be budgeted and increase due to volume increase but then also consider new treatments.
In addition really we will have to pay more taxes for it either directly or further cuts elsewhere - in addition to efficiency.
Same with schools higher population = build more schools or extend existing you cannot not do anything + schools budget has to increase accordingly.
I'd say same goes for Police and Firemen.
Oh, hang on.........
REALIST123 said:
Yes, because all three of those services are being run as efficiently and productively as possible, aren't they?
Oh, hang on.........
I'd wager that even with the most efficient set up possible given all those changes they would more than outweigh the savings by a huge marginOh, hang on.........
Welshbeef said:
Reasons why NHS spending is increasing at a higher rate than inflation and should do...
"Should do"...?It should only increase if we can afford it.
If an increase in population (etc) leads to a commensurate increase in our ability to raise taxes without being punitive about it (which ultimately leads to a lesser ability to raise taxes...), then fair enough. Otherwise no.
The NHS should not be treated any differently to any other service provided. It pulls on the heart strings, but it still has to be paid for. We British are a funny lot. We cling to ideas that we're the best in the world at things long after this ceases to be the case. Heavy industry went this way. The NHS is no different and has been dead on its feet for decades for the same reason - "it's the best in the world and not throwing money at it is criminal". Load of cobblers.
Keeping it simple is the best approach, but that will inevitably lead to plenty of pictures of sour faced people in the Daily Mail bemoaning their lot.
gpo746 said:
My brother is one of the least discriminatory people around. He did however call time on an interview with a disabled woman who was blind wanting to work in his office. The software he would have needed to install just wasn't viable. That may have been being discriminatory or it may have been sound business sense.
He had a woman who had mobility issues - she walked on crutches - great woman lively bubbly and funny. He just put her in the downstairs office on the desk nearest the exit door (in case of fire evacuation) she was nicknamed "sticks" great woman.
Then there was the girl with the speech impediment would have been painful (but not impossible) to have her answering the phone. She was totally brilliant and accurate on data entry, spreadsheets, dealing with written complaints, he gave her a whirl at it she did great.
e did a group office meeting when he took her on with the other staff before she started and basically said "look ladies there will be issues with her on the phones but we are going to work round that " or words to that effect. She started did well after a week they tried her answering customer enquiries. She got some rather impatient people who just assumed she was "thick" and asked for someone else. It got her down it added an extra "layer" to dealing with enquries/ complaints. Had an open chat with her she was happy not to do it. The other staff were happy as whilst she wasn't answering the phones she was blinding fast at the data, typing etc. End result it just worked out.
Now going back to the minister who made the comments in a way I sort of see some of the point - its being discussed/ argued in another thread anyway, I see some disabled people doing voluntary work in charity shops presumably for zilch some seem happy and feel more part of society. The danger is simply exploitation and is it a slippery slope etc.
If he had only added "...than an able bodied person to an employer already struggling to make a profit" after "worth less" it would have been less inflammatory. A minister later said that the £2 (from the employer) would be made up to minimum wage level by the government which seems to be a good way of achieving the purpose.He had a woman who had mobility issues - she walked on crutches - great woman lively bubbly and funny. He just put her in the downstairs office on the desk nearest the exit door (in case of fire evacuation) she was nicknamed "sticks" great woman.
Then there was the girl with the speech impediment would have been painful (but not impossible) to have her answering the phone. She was totally brilliant and accurate on data entry, spreadsheets, dealing with written complaints, he gave her a whirl at it she did great.
e did a group office meeting when he took her on with the other staff before she started and basically said "look ladies there will be issues with her on the phones but we are going to work round that " or words to that effect. She started did well after a week they tried her answering customer enquiries. She got some rather impatient people who just assumed she was "thick" and asked for someone else. It got her down it added an extra "layer" to dealing with enquries/ complaints. Had an open chat with her she was happy not to do it. The other staff were happy as whilst she wasn't answering the phones she was blinding fast at the data, typing etc. End result it just worked out.
Now going back to the minister who made the comments in a way I sort of see some of the point - its being discussed/ argued in another thread anyway, I see some disabled people doing voluntary work in charity shops presumably for zilch some seem happy and feel more part of society. The danger is simply exploitation and is it a slippery slope etc.
Murph7355 said:
"Should do"...?
It should only increase if we can afford it.
If an increase in population (etc) leads to a commensurate increase in our ability to raise taxes without being punitive about it (which ultimately leads to a lesser ability to raise taxes...), then fair enough. Otherwise no.
The NHS should not be treated any differently to any other service provided. It pulls on the heart strings, but it still has to be paid for. We British are a funny lot. We cling to ideas that we're the best in the world at things long after this ceases to be the case. Heavy industry went this way. The NHS is no different and has been dead on its feet for decades for the same reason - "it's the best in the world and not throwing money at it is criminal". Load of cobblers.
Keeping it simple is the best approach, but that will inevitably lead to plenty of pictures of sour faced people in the Daily Mail bemoaning their lot.
Disagree the NHS is a free service for all be you rich or poor at the requirement of need. It should only increase if we can afford it.
If an increase in population (etc) leads to a commensurate increase in our ability to raise taxes without being punitive about it (which ultimately leads to a lesser ability to raise taxes...), then fair enough. Otherwise no.
The NHS should not be treated any differently to any other service provided. It pulls on the heart strings, but it still has to be paid for. We British are a funny lot. We cling to ideas that we're the best in the world at things long after this ceases to be the case. Heavy industry went this way. The NHS is no different and has been dead on its feet for decades for the same reason - "it's the best in the world and not throwing money at it is criminal". Load of cobblers.
Keeping it simple is the best approach, but that will inevitably lead to plenty of pictures of sour faced people in the Daily Mail bemoaning their lot.
The only way for the NHS to change is to eliminate that key part of what it delivers.
Clearly if UK population doubled then by default NHS budget would have to double, if the demographic moves from (guessing 30% of population) to say 50% of population with the known higher care costs for older people v younger then NHS spend has to increase.
Murph7355 said:
retrorider said:
The £144+ trillion of National debt and rising will take some time to pay off then...
The National Debt is 1.4 trillion (OK so not 40yrs - 56yrs). It would only have reached 144 trillion had Labour won the 2010 election. Or will do if they win the next one. Or the one after.
The truth however is much worse, factoring in all liabilities including state and public sector pensions, the real national debt is closer to £4.8 trillion, some £78,000 for every person in the UK.
gpo746 said:
My brother is one of the least discriminatory people around. He did however call time on an interview with a disabled woman who was blind wanting to work in his office. The software he would have needed to install just wasn't viable. That may have been being discriminatory or it may have been sound business sense.
I was under the impression grants were available for this sort of thing to encourage SMEs to employ people, or have the evil coalition stormtroopers taken them away?hidetheelephants said:
gpo746 said:
My brother is one of the least discriminatory people around. He did however call time on an interview with a disabled woman who was blind wanting to work in his office. The software he would have needed to install just wasn't viable. That may have been being discriminatory or it may have been sound business sense.
I was under the impression grants were available for this sort of thing to encourage SMEs to employ people, or have the evil coalition stormtroopers taken them away?There was some key worker or someone involved he rang who was supposed to know about this equipment needed who tended to agree with him about its viability.
Tonight:
"David Dimbleby presents the topical debate from Liverpool. On the panel are Scotland's outgoing first minister Alex Salmond MSP, Labour's shadow energy secretary Caroline Flint MP, Conservative minister for disabled people Mark Harper MP, UKIP's Louise Bours MEP and the leader of the Unite trade union Len McCluskey."
Think I'll be keeping well clear - Salmond, Flint and McCluskey will be too much to handle for my health. And it's in Liverpool so expect a well balanced audience
"David Dimbleby presents the topical debate from Liverpool. On the panel are Scotland's outgoing first minister Alex Salmond MSP, Labour's shadow energy secretary Caroline Flint MP, Conservative minister for disabled people Mark Harper MP, UKIP's Louise Bours MEP and the leader of the Unite trade union Len McCluskey."
Think I'll be keeping well clear - Salmond, Flint and McCluskey will be too much to handle for my health. And it's in Liverpool so expect a well balanced audience
Edited by BlackLabel on Thursday 23 October 21:38
BlackLabel said:
Tonight:
"David Dimbleby presents the topical debate from Liverpool. On the panel are Scotland's outgoing first minister Alex Salmond MSP, Labour's shadow energy secretary Caroline Flint MP, Conservative minister for disabled people Mark Harper MP, UKIP's Louise Bours MEP and the leader of the Unite trade union Len McCluskey."
Think I'll be keeping well clear tonight - Salmond, Flint and McCluskey will be to much to handle for my health. And it's in Liverpool so expect a well balanced audience
The BBC must be choking on their spittle."David Dimbleby presents the topical debate from Liverpool. On the panel are Scotland's outgoing first minister Alex Salmond MSP, Labour's shadow energy secretary Caroline Flint MP, Conservative minister for disabled people Mark Harper MP, UKIP's Louise Bours MEP and the leader of the Unite trade union Len McCluskey."
Think I'll be keeping well clear tonight - Salmond, Flint and McCluskey will be to much to handle for my health. And it's in Liverpool so expect a well balanced audience
Another UKIP spokesperson on QT. LibDems on 3% in national polls, and UKIP on 25%. The poor old Guardian readers are being forced to give a platform to UKIP.
At 3%, the LibDems should be on the programme about once every 6 months. UKIP should be on every week.
I'll stake £100.00 that says they won't have UKIP representative on next week... and they will have a LibDem.
Utterly disgusting leftie bias... all paid for by the taxpayer.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff