Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

And the fact that it comes from senior NHS 'sources' couldn't possibly mean that it's exaggerated or posturing to achieve more leeway from NHS England. At the end of the day, as the head of policing in Leicestershire admitted recently, it in their interests to get as much funding as possible. I've  seen enough working part-time this year in corporate comms to see how much bullshit is fed to the media and that you might be selective on which publications you feed certain information to.

 

Now that might not be the case here and there may well be serious imminent plans in place to select these procedures for cuts. But then the question is raised, and I'm not selecting what should and shouldn't be cut myself, at what point do you continue to fund and fund and fund some more? I accept, in this case, it might be a false economy, but someone somewhere is making the selection and they are not the Conservative party. But what value do you go up to, or do you keep going up and up and up because it's the NHS and everybody should have access to the best possible treatment for free? I would suggest even you have a limit to what we fund, hence I don't see you getting angry that every single pioneering treatment isn't available on the NHS. So then why is one value more acceptable than another? 

 

And I just speculate that to achieve an optimal healthcare system, people might need to change their attitudes towards the NHS and the entire system. Singapore and Switzerland offer differing examples.

 

 

I can't wait for the day this scumbag government are out of power and I don't have to read shit like this.

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

And the fact that it comes from senior NHS 'sources' couldn't possibly mean that it's exaggerated or posturing to achieve more leeway from NHS England. At the end of the day, as the head of policing in Leicestershire admitted recently, it in their interests to get as much funding as possible. I've  seen enough working part-time this year in corporate comms to see how much bullshit is fed to the media and that you might be selective on which publications you feed certain information to.

 

Now that might not be the case here and there may well be serious imminent plans in place to select these procedures for cuts. But then the question is raised, and I'm not selecting what should and shouldn't be cut myself, at what point do you continue to fund and fund and fund some more? I accept, in this case, it might be a false economy, but someone somewhere is making the selection and they are not the Conservative party. But what value do you go up to, or do you keep going up and up and up because it's the NHS and everybody should have access to the best possible treatment for free? I would suggest even you have a limit to what we fund, hence I don't see you getting angry that every single pioneering treatment isn't available on the NHS. So then why is one value more acceptable than another? 

 

And I just speculate that to achieve an optimal healthcare system, people might need to change their attitudes towards the NHS and the entire system. Singapore and Switzerland offer examples.

 

 

Sorry, but unless you can guarantee a high baseline quality of care for those who cannot afford it, a system where people "cannot afford" to go to the doctor, where the life expectancies between rich and poor become incredibly polarised as a result, and where poor folks don't die but wish they had done after seeing the bill for an injury or illness that was not down to them is unacceptable.

 

I'm pretty sure that's not what you have in mind, but to prevent that the guarantee of good baseline care regardless of material wealth must be ironclad.

[Kopfkino]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

I can't wait for the day this scumbag government are out of power and I don't have to read shit like this.

 

Is that you admitting that not only does socialism rob you of your property rights, it robs you of your freedom of speech?

 

But hey, again it's a case of you throwing a guardian article into the mix and then having absolutely no discussion surrounding that. And you said it was the Conservatives on here that didn't know how to think for themselves. I thought you'd mellowed since your break but evidently you are back to going in a fit of rage whenever you see something you don't agree with. And to think people criticise @Webbo for his short responses and supposed inability to debate.

 

[Kopfkino]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Sorry, but unless you can guarantee a high baseline quality of care for those who cannot afford it, a system where people "cannot afford" to go to the doctor, where the life expectancies between rich and poor become incredibly polarised as a result, and where poor folks don't die but wish they had done after seeing the bill for an injury or illness that was not down to them is unacceptable.

 

I'm pretty sure that's not what you have in mind, but to prevent that the guarantee of good baseline care regardless of material wealth must be ironclad.

 

That's great and at no point have I suggested any kind of system that penalises the poor for being poor, although you could argue that unless you ban private health treatment, this is always the case. Or maybe I have done and missed all the dead bodies of the poor piling up in Switzerland and Singapore.

Edited 14 July 2017 by KingGTF

[Sharpe's Fox]

Property is theft comrades we must purge the bourgeois and the kulaks from our great motherland and the proletariat will create a perfect society

 

The people's flag is deepest red

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

That's great and at no point have I suggested any kind of system that penalises the poor for being poor, although I would suggest that unless you ban private health treatment, this is always the case. Or maybe I missed all the dead bodies of the poor piling up in Switzerland and Singapore.

 

I'm not sure about that, hence my thought on a baseline. In the UK you do have the option to pay to go private or to take a (pretty good) baseline with the NHS, after all - or is your problem with the idea that if you go private you shouldn't have to fund the NHS at all?

 

Anyhow, in my view money's not much good to a sick guy and absolutely no use to a dead one, so this is one area where perhaps monetary value isn't quite as important.

[Kopfkino]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm not sure about that, hence my thought on a baseline. In the UK you do have the option to pay to go private or to take a (pretty good) baseline with the NHS, after all - or is your problem with the idea that if you go private you shouldn't have to fund the NHS at all?

 

Anyhow, in my view money's not much good to a sick guy and absolutely no use to a dead one, so this is one area where perhaps monetary value isn't quite as important.

 

No tbf, reading back I didn't interpret it properly. I was suggesting the poor always lose out if private healthcare is available (given it often produces slightly better outcomes but not always). But I didn't make the connection with guaranteeing a baseline.

 

Ofc the monetary value is as important. I know Mrs May conveniently forgot that magic money trees don't exist but you can't just fund everything. You still have to consider the monetary value of actions regarding healthcare because it doesn't just appear out of thin air (cue our BoE economist jumping in to remind us all that all money is debt so it does). Unless you have an infinite supply of money decisions have to be made and for whatever reason, we deem it more desirable for a man in a suit to decide that and then criticise them when they do. Something has to be foregone.

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

Is that you admitting that not only does socialism rob you of your property rights, it robs you of your freedom of speech?

 

But hey, again it's a case of you throwing a guardian article into the mix and then having absolutely no discussion surrounding that. And you said it was the Conservatives on here that didn't know how to think for themselves. I thought you'd mellowed since your break but evidently you are back to going in a fit of rage whenever you see something you don't agree with. And to think people criticise @Webbo for his short responses and supposed inability to debate.

 

The problem I have is that I can try to be inclusive, admit that there are areas that I don't necessarily see the Labour approach as being 100% correct but you lot on the right consistently fail to give an inch. We're now discussing the fact that care is being withdrawn from heart attack patients (999 services are being redesigned also with the knock on effect that heart attack patients may have to wait much longer) and you're still seeking arguments to counter that this is bad thing. I'm sorry but the right has just become so utterly devoid of compassion for its fellow citizens that I fail to see why I should have any feeling other than resentment in return. I'm not fighting for me here, I'm fighting for a country that actually gives a shit.

Edited 14 July 2017 by Guest

[Izzy]

34 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I can't wait for the day this scumbag government are out of power and I don't have to read shit like this.

Your hatred for the Conservative party is bordering on fury and rage. You're sounding a little unstable sometimes...

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

No tbf, reading back I didn't interpret it properly. I was suggesting the poor always lose out if private healthcare is available (given it often produces slightly better outcomes but not always). But I didn't make the connection with guaranteeing a baseline.

 

Ofc the monetary value is as important. I know Mrs May conveniently forgot that magic money trees don't exist but you can't just fund everything. You still have to consider the monetary value of actions regarding healthcare because it doesn't just appear out of thin air (cue our BoE economist jumping in to remind us all that all money is debt so it does). Unless you have an infinite supply of money decisions have to be made and for whatever reason, we deem it more desirable for a man in a suit to decide that and then criticise them when they do. Something has to be foregone.

2

Right. Allow me to look for some clarity here, because I really don't want to be seen to be strawmanning you in this case.

Are you suggesting that monetary value should be prioritised over the life or the long/short term good health (be it pain free, able to function as close to able-bodied as possible or whatever) of a human being in certain situations?

[Kopfkino]

8 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The problem I have is that I can try to be inclusive, admit that there are areas that I don't necessarily see the Labour approach as being 100% correct but you lot on the right consistently fail to give an inch. We're now discussing the fact that care is being withdrawn from heart attack patients (999 services are being redesigned also with the knock on effect that heart attack patients may have to wait much longer) and you're still seeking arguments to counter that this is bad thing. I'm sorry but the right has just become so utterly devoid of compassion for its fellow citizens that I fail to see why I should have any feeling other than resentment in return. I'm not fighting for me here, I'm fighting for a country that actually gives a shit.

 

Right so when talking about yourself you talk about a party. When talking about "us lot" you refer to an entire side that is more embedded in ideas and ideology. Now that's all great except you then seem to confuse the entire right with the UK Conservative Party. Now they are not one and the same and I dare say I could be far more critical of said party and it's policy position for the last year for sure, than you could be on the Labour party. It's important you realise there's a distinction because actually I wasn't defending party policy, I was asking a simple question; where do you draw the line on funding because you can't fund absolutely everything? Wrt withdrawing treatment from heart attack patients, I am not countering that it is a bad thing. I said I am not making those choices, I am not discussing what specifics deserve treating and what doesn't, I am again asking what you continue to treat. I made no mention of my stance on THIS particular decision. 

 

Again I don't see that just throwing money at everything is compassion. I know there is a monopoly on that word these days but to, basically insist, that I or Webbo or MattP etc basically wish ill on fellow citizens is both ridiculous and disrespectful. But no you're most certainly right, I wish to flee to Switzerland as soon as I can and watch from afar at the state of the UK because I questioned how you continue to fund its greatest institution and even dared consider there might need to be change in thinking. Still at least I'll have great healthcare.

[Kopfkino]

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Right. Allow me to look for some clarity here, because I really don't want to be seen to be strawmanning you in this case.

Are you suggesting that monetary value should be prioritised over the life or the long/short term good health (be it pain free, able to function as close to able-bodied as possible or whatever) of a human being in certain situations?

 

 

Unless you have an infinite supply of money then you have to, otherwise how do you fund it. Yes it would be great to not have to put a price on any life, but how can you not? How do you fund it if you do not have a consideration for monetary value. Should NICE approve the use of every drug on the NHS no matter the cost? 

 

Now you did very well to frame the question in a way that gets the answer that makes someone look like a horrible person. If you ask the moral question, then no I believe that to be inherently morally wrong. Practicality is different though.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, KingGTF said:

 

 

Unless you have an infinite supply of money then you have to, otherwise how do you fund it. Yes it would be great to not have to put a price on any life, but how can you not? How do you fund it if you do not have a consideration for monetary value. Should NICE approve the use of every drug on the NHS no matter the cost? 

 

Now you did very well to frame the question in a way that gets the answer that makes someone look like a horrible person. If you ask the moral question, then no I believe that to be inherently morally wrong. Practicality is different though.

4

I know, I'll be asking the questions on Newsnight soon, just you wait.

 

But in all seriousness I honestly wanted to know the distinctions you make regarding such things and how you reconcile your answer with your own moral compass, so I made the question as simply and black/white as possible. In light of that, I do appreciate the candid answer. 

 

I hope one day humans will have the resources and abilities in technology to move beyond the idea that absolutely everything has a material value and so won;t have to compromise our own morality in the way we have to today.

[Guest]

Similar arguments being used in the states

 

Mick Mulvaney, President Donald Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget, said Thursday that the proposed cuts to Meals on Wheels were “probably one of the most compassionate things we can do.”

 

Mulvaney tried to justify his statement by arguing that the administration is “trying to focus on both the recipients of the money and the folks who give us the money in the first place. And I think it’s fairly compassionate to go to them and say, ‘Look, we’re not gonna ask you for your hard-earned money, anymore, single mother of two in Detroit . . . unless we can guarantee to you that that money is actually being used in a proper function.'”

 

It's an absolutely disgraceful argument. 

 

We can afford a DUP deal, we can afford Trident, we can afford HS1 and2, we can afford huge subsidies for fossil fuels. We can't afford heart attack care and we can't afford for schools to stay open all of the hours they have in the past. Fabulous. Isn't progress wonderful?

[Kopfkino]

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I know, I'll be asking the questions on Newsnight soon, just you wait.

 

But in all seriousness I honestly wanted to know the distinctions you make regarding such things and how you reconcile your answer with your own moral compass, so I made the question as simply and black/white as possible. In light of that, I do appreciate the candid answer. 

 

I hope one day humans will have the resources and abilities in technology to move beyond the idea that absolutely everything has a material value and so won;t have to compromise our own morality in the way we have to today.

 

I should actually have made the distinction that I believe it is morally wrong to choose one life over another, or more closely to actively choose one persons interests over another, and not actually the placing of monetary value. In most cases, I guess, that goes hand in hand. Of course you have to remember that monetary value allows for advancement in medicine, so I'm not sure anyone can say that using monetary value is explicitly immoral when that has possibly led to the level we are at today. I mean the concept of morality is kind of guff anyway. 

 

Of course, I said the only way is to have infinite money but if we reach an end game where we can't further improve then that would enable us to have much less regard for material value. It's difficult today and I'm sure we all wish it was different but opportunity costs do exist.

Edited 14 July 2017 by KingGTF

[Guest]

 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/michael-thorne/most-foolish-nhs-privatisation-yet

 

[Bryn]

6 hours ago, Webbo said:

Apparently you have to put these things in context.

The context is that coronary heart disease remains the leading cause of death worldwide but nowadays in the UK 70% of people now survive what was previously almost universally fatal (that is to say, acute myocardial infarction).

 

The context is also that your posts make you come across incredibly small minded, unpleasant and part of the reason this country feels like a bit of a pit at the moment.

Edited 14 July 2017 by Bryn

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Bryn said:

The context is that coronary heart disease remains the leading cause of death worldwide but nowadays in the UK 70% of people now survive what was previously almost universally fatal (that is to say, acute myocardial infarction).

 

The context is also that your posts make you come across incredibly small minded, unpleasant and part of the reason this country feels like a bit of a pit at the moment.

You have to die of something, we don't live forever. Thinking about watching my grandma pass, I'm not sure I want to be kept alive until there is barely anything left. 

What's your veiw on euthanasia Bryn, it'd be interesting to get a doctors viewpoint.

[Bryn]

Just now, Strokes said:

You have to die of something, we don't live forever. Thinking about watching my grandma pass, I'm not sure I want to be kept alive until there is barely anything left. 

What's your veiw on euthanasia Bryn, it'd be interesting to get a doctors viewpoint.

 

Well I completely agree, but the point is an angioplasty unblocks the vessel and if you do it quickly enough, recovery can be exceptional. And cardiac rehab post massive heart attacks is getting better and better. I'm all about quality of life over longevity, believe me, we have the ability to not only prevent death in ischaemic heart disease but prevent impairment as well, that's massive. The idea of cutting cardiac catheterisation services is utterly bizarre, they're amongst the most successful services we've got.

 

That's very difficult for me. As a principle I'm for euthanisia; I'm sure I'm not the only person on here who has witnessed that there are fates worse than death. But could I actually physically administed a lethal dose of medication? I really don't know if I could.

[Guest]

Top 1% of households in UK fully recovered from financial crisis

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/15/top-1-of-households-in-uk-fully-recovered-from-financial-crisis

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, Bryn said:

 

Well I completely agree, but the point is an angioplasty unblocks the vessel and if you do it quickly enough, recovery can be exceptional. And cardiac rehab post massive heart attacks is getting better and better. I'm all about quality of life over longevity, believe me, we have the ability to not only prevent death in ischaemic heart disease but prevent impairment as well, that's massive. The idea of cutting cardiac catheterisation services is utterly bizarre, they're amongst the most successful services we've got.

 

That's very difficult for me. As a principle I'm for euthanisia; I'm sure I'm not the only person on here who has witnessed that there are fates worse than death. But could I actually physically administed a lethal dose of medication? I really don't know if I could.

Yeah sorry I really wasn't here to make a dig, I really don't know enough about it and will have to take your word for it. It was just my general train of thought, as you do on a Friday night.

[Bryn]

Just now, Strokes said:

Yeah sorry I really wasn't here to make a dig, I really don't know enough about it and will have to take your word for it. It was just my general train of thought, as you do on a Friday night.

 

I didn't take it as a dig, broadly speaking I agree with your sentiment.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Strokes said:

You have to die of something, we don't live forever. Thinking about watching my grandma pass, I'm not sure I want to be kept alive until there is barely anything left. 

What's your veiw on euthanasia Bryn, it'd be interesting to get a doctors viewpoint.

Presumably you think we should cut all the nhs' services then?

[Bryn]

Just now, toddybad said:

Presumably you think we should cut all the nhs' services then?

 

I don't think that's what he's said.

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

Presumably you think we should cut all the nhs' services then?

Sure.