Covid-19

[Escobarp]

Just now, Spider said:

We all just need Mounts’ crystal ball.

Captain Hindsight gets it right every time 😊😊

Now now. And he’s less chance of getting stuff right when you and your brexit sidekick fromage are making stuff up about him 😬

[Spider]

Just now, Traf said:

I actually got told this today by a vendor/supplier after I suggested a 3hr wait on hold to speak to someone wasn't acceptable.

I won't name and shame the company involved other than to say the person I spoke to was an absolute tuit.

How did you prepare for the pandemic?

Mounts maybe able to advise in future.

[Not in Crawley]

Just in Hollywood Bowl (don't ask why) it's mental and not one person is wearing a mask. 

Also, why are all the men wearing onesies and shit white trainers?

Odd.

[Spider]

Just now, Escobarp said:

Now now. And he’s less chance of getting stuff right when you and your brexit sidekick fromage are making stuff up about him 😬

I only quote him directly.

Theres gold in them thar search hills you know….

He’s blocked me because it was getting a bit humiliating for him.

Some Spanish waiters will have copped a fair amount of Rule Britannia smug this last week or so.🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

[Tonge moor green jacket]

2 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

I didn’t mention 10 years.

How is your pension fund doing?

Where is it invested?

Dunno about his, but mine doing well. Obviously had a blip when everywhere got shut down and the economy shrank, but good now.

Anyway, back to the funding debate.

I posted a link a few weeks back that showed public spending expressed as a percentage of gdp. Going back to the early 1900s.

Obviously some kinks in the plot becasue of wars, but general the progression has been for ever upward 

10% or so initially, now around 50%. Don't have to have a PhD in economics to see that eventually something will have to give.

Every department wants more, but it's just not possible. 

Some serious questions to be asked about the scope of the nhs.

A lot of money spent on treatments that might only give a very moderate improvement in quality of life or extended life for example. 

Similarly on individuals with very high needs that previously would frankly not have survived.

Or on people that require fertility treatment to have children.

We could all make a list, and there are clearly very strong moral arguments for continued help.

This is where it becomes a victim of its own success.

Ultimately, some difficult decisions will need to be made.

All at a time when migration here and elsewhere in Europe is going to rocket, and nations pleading for foreign aid.

And global warming.

[Rudy]

8 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said:

Just in Hollywood Bowl (don't ask why) it's mental and not one person is wearing a mask. 

Also, why are all the men wearing onesies and shit white trainers?

Odd.

I was over Middlebrook before I’m telling you it’s 60/40 in favour non mask wearers 

[victor meldrew]

17 minutes ago, Traf said:

I actually got told this today by a vendor/supplier after I suggested a 3hr wait on hold to speak to someone wasn't acceptable.

I won't name and shame the company involved other than to say the person I spoke to was an absolute tuit.

i guess that would be tui, absolutely shite customer service

[Not in Crawley]

38 minutes ago, Rudy said:

I was over Middlebrook before I’m telling you it’s 60/40 in favour non mask wearers 

That's were I was, not a mask in sight.

Lots of chavvy buggers though.

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Dunno about his, but mine doing well. Obviously had a blip when everywhere got shut down and the economy shrank, but good now.

Anyway, back to the funding debate.

I posted a link a few weeks back that showed public spending expressed as a percentage of gdp. Going back to the early 1900s.

Obviously some kinks in the plot becasue of wars, but general the progression has been for ever upward 

10% or so initially, now around 50%. Don't have to have a PhD in economics to see that eventually something will have to give.

Every department wants more, but it's just not possible. 

Some serious questions to be asked about the scope of the nhs.

A lot of money spent on treatments that might only give a very moderate improvement in quality of life or extended life for example. 

Similarly on individuals with very high needs that previously would frankly not have survived.

Or on people that require fertility treatment to have children.

We could all make a list, and there are clearly very strong moral arguments for continued help.

This is where it becomes a victim of its own success.

Ultimately, some difficult decisions will need to be made.

All at a time when migration here and elsewhere in Europe is going to rocket, and nations pleading for foreign aid.

And global warming.

Quite

[Guest]

2 hours ago, kent_white said:

It hasn't - not in real terms. 

And not when taking into account an increase in expectation/costs of supplies and agency fees/an ageing population/higher acuity of patients etc. 

Honest. 

I think you absolutely need all that information as a tax payer. In general it's all out there - it's just not distilled into a package that makes sense to everyone and isn't spun politically. 

This is one issue that isn't one for party politics or ideology. Although - is a health system that's free at the point of delivery an ideology in itself? 

I know people talk about a private healthcare system. And that might make sense in some circumstances. And if we were starting from scratch it might be an idea to explore. 

But the money it would cost to dismantle the current system would be astronomical - patient care would suffer for literally decades. It might take about 50 years to finally come to fruition. 

We've got a pretty good base. We don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater IMHO. We just need to give ourselves a level playing field.

Anyway - I'm boring myself now! Been one of those days today! And I come on here sometimes to rant! 😁

Nobody ever gives a number of how much “ underfunded “ the NHS is;

 

10bn a year?

50?

100?

those constantly bleating that it is “underfunded ” would have more (some) credibility if they quoted a figure and substantiated it.

Anything else sounds like political posturing.

[stevieb]

1 hour ago, Rudy said:

I was over Middlebrook before I’m telling you it’s 60/40 in favour non mask wearers 

Masks went up to 90% on Christmas eve as people didn't want to miss out on the festivities. 

Back down to 50/50 now they might have a chance of the first week of Jan off work sick with a cold. 

"For the Greater Good" 

[Rudy]

19 minutes ago, stevieb said:

Masks went up to 90% on Christmas eve as people didn't want to miss out on the festivities. 

Back down to 50/50 now they might have a chance of the first week of Jan off work sick with a cold. 

"For the Greater Good" 

Most people should wear masks because they’re fuckin ugly 

[Spider]

31 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

Nobody ever gives a number of how much “ underfunded “ the NHS is;

 

10bn a year?

50?

100?

those constantly bleating that it is “underfunded ” would have more (some) credibility if they quoted a figure and substantiated it.

Anything else sounds like political posturing.

I have a figure

<clears throat>

£350million a week

 

[Spider]

By the way, I can’t take the credit for that number, I’ve used it based on a figure our current leader was rather fond of pushing:

[Tonge moor green jacket]

9 minutes ago, Spider said:

By the way, I can’t take the credit for that number, I’ve used it based on a figure our current leader was rather fond of pushing:

You knew it wasn't fully accurate, but you still voted for it. Hmm.

 

[Spider]

Just now, Tonge moor green jacket said:

You knew it wasn't fully accurate, but you still voted for it. Hmm.

 

I’ve since realised it wasn’t the only thing that was bullshit.

But it’s a figure we were given. Work with what you’ve got eh?

[Tonge moor green jacket]

18 minutes ago, Spider said:

I have a figure

<clears throat>

£350million a week

 

I had a look the other day. From around June or July iirc. The extra increments already given and due in future add up to more than the net 180million. 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

4 minutes ago, Spider said:

I’ve since realised it wasn’t the only thing that was bullshit.

But it’s a figure we were given. Work with what you’ve got eh?

Aye.

Got a lot more information too. I worked with it all, and more besides.

[wiggy]

I wonder if someone who’s stance on Brexit was decided purely on what might get him into office might make his decisions now based not on what is the right thing to do, but purely on what he thinks will be more popular…?

[Traf]

2 hours ago, victor meldrew said:

i guess that would be tui, absolutely shite customer service

Correct, mate. On both counts.

[mickbrown]

15 hours ago, boltondiver said:

People (politicians) always say it needs more money. Nobody ever says how much would mean fully funded.

It is a beast of an organisation, with much inefficiency, along with great qualities.

As a taxpayer, I would want a honest appraisal of it before any further significant funding. 

It might be helpful if it was a non-party appraisal, but this government has increased funding over the years.

 

Every single government since the inception of the NHS has increased funding over the years.

The last 10 years have seen it increase at a smaller rate than any time in the previous 60.

[Escobarp]

8 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

Every single government since the inception of the NHS has increased funding over the years.

The last 10 years have seen it increase at a smaller rate than any time in the previous 60.

But the total level of underfunding is a cumulation of all the governments you mention underfunding it in all likelihood yes?

[Mounts Kipper]

It’s a favourite tactic of Labour to pick fault with the Tories on NHS spending (easy when you are rarely in power) if they get in power they might spend more but the underlying issue is no government can fully satisfy the demands of the service.

Any overspend by Labour Party will ultimately have to be dealt with by the next Tory government.

We cannot have an open cheque book for the NHS and somewhere a balance has to be struck.

I just trust the right balance to be struck by Tory party rather than the Labour Party. 

Edited December 30, 2021 by Mounts Kipper

[mickbrown]

19 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

It’s a favourite tactic of Labour to pick fault with the Tories on NHS spending (easy when you are rarely in power) if they get in power they might spend more but the underlying issue is no government can fully satisfy the demands of the service.

Any overspend by Labour Party will ultimately have to be dealt with by the next Tory government.

We cannot have an open cheque book for the NHS and somewhere a balance has to be struck.

I just trust the right balance to be struck by Tory party rather than the Labour Party. 

What about education spending? Same thing?

[Casino]

21 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

It’s a favourite tactic of Labour to pick fault with the Tories on NHS spending (easy when you are rarely in power) if they get in power they might spend more but the underlying issue is no government can fully satisfy the demands of the service.

Any overspend by Labour Party will ultimately have to be dealt with by the next Tory government.

We cannot have an open cheque book for the NHS and somewhere a balance has to be struck.

I just trust the right balance to be struck by Tory party rather than the Labour Party. 

Just checking...it took you 30 years of voting labour before you reached that conclusion?