Pre Brexit: Let's give our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week. Vote Leave, take control.
Post-Brexit: No extra money for NHS, Theresa May tells health chief
Printable View
The situation within the NHS is rather shocking, and the Tories are hell-bent on privatization which will be a disaster for the electorate. I don't think people who are pro-privatization actually realise the consequences and shit-storm they produce, or they are that rich they don't care. The price to 'enjoy' the same perks as the USA is approximately 10x the current cost we pay, with the privilege of 50% of the population unable to afford basic health care. This is especially targeting the most vulnerable, like our older population who occupy 2/3rd of NHS services. Don't need to worry about waiting times then since no one can afford to access the services.
For a brief price comparison, for a mother who needs to have a c-section, this costs the NHS approximately, £1755-2582, sounds expensive right? According to these statistics, the average bill in the USA is $50,000 (£39,000). That is what your government wants, it wants to save £2500 by making the rest of us pay £39,000.
Another thing not listed in your article Pannonian is the massive cuts to local and council social services. This means that carers need to be employed by the NHS, to ensure people at home are receiving treatment, adding significantly more costs to the bill. This was something previously covered by social care budgets which are being slashed and squeezed in the name of 'Austerity'.
Also by turning the system from preventive healthcare to reactionary healthcare, the cost to everyone and the economy is increased even more. I am an advocate for even more funding for the NHS, Mental Health services especially, so let me drop this here. These figures were from Seamus Watson, National Mental Health Lead, Public Health England who I was speaking to last Monday. He says that Mental Health is the largest cause of disability, with 1 in 4 adults, and this costs the UK economy (businesses, benefits, etc) approximately £105 billion per year. Just for comparison purposes, the budget of the entire NHS last year was £116.4 billion. and only £11.7 billion of this is tackling Mental Health. With further cuts we get in Mental Health, with horrendously overstretched services, the costs to the UK economy significantly increase. Then we spend our money on the of likes Trident, at £31 billion (+10 billion in reserve)... the fact is, if we actually put significant money into Mental Health, or event the EU-leavers promised 18.2 billion, the cost of MH to the economy would decrease that significantly, that we would be able to fund Trident from the gains of that.
Services that are not state operated are not the state's fault when they screw up - they can also blame the trains, fuel prices etc and be the good guys in standing up for consumers rather than being the ones who are at fault.
Health services need to be honest: certain things are too expensive to do and keeping the elderly alive costs more than we have since when they are better they continue to cost a fortune.
But no one wants that conversation - to cut beds for no-hope premature babies since the papers cite the one who bucks the odds, free drugs for "at risk" gay men (as having to use free condoms is so last millennium) and on course oncology and rare diseases - a bottomless pit where nigh on infinite money can be spent.
Private companies would have to rationalise as we all know has to happen.
~:smoking:
The conversations are had a lot in health circles, or the ones I am in, but the consensus is pretty clear, we as a society are not going to abandon people to suffer and die, and I am glad we are not. You mention about older people and you are correct, they are the biggest users of the health service by a long mile, and they are also the ones who contributed to it the most. What solutions are you actually proposing? The implication of your statement is abandoning them, is that a position you are considering advocating, or the play of the devil?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Being honest, I am happy for us to 'waste' money to give people a fighting chance, I believe in a moral society and we shouldn't just let people die due to a low chance, then grumbling over a collectively insignificant amount. However, I do agree that some choices such be privately funded as they are purely optional, and some lifestyle drugs do receive heavy debate, but these are usually not sanctioned as CCGs are too underfunded to make provision for them.
Of course, with those complaints one has to realize that only the state can achieve service rationing - private companies will only focus on what gives them money, meaning a focus on high-risk and high-cost for those who can afford it.
Cancer research and treatment is booming in America precisely because that's where the money is for private industry. Same with things like end-of-life care and premature births.
I never said suffer. Palliative care used to be there to ensure there was no suffering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
The elderly have not necessarily contributed the most - especially since the cost of funding has shot up vastly. The solutions are either to continue to add money (no idea where this money is) or to ration the money there is. And to spend money giving some a chance means others are going to die who had a better chance. The money spent is not insignificant since of course it is not just the cost of the drugs, but the ongoing costs.
~:smoking:
I understand what you mean by that, but operations such as a hip replacement are not life-ending, and they could still be alive and kicking in 20 years time. So unless you are suggesting they should go without for 20 years in a situation where they are being disabled due to being unable to access services due to mobility.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I have to admit though, when I first read your last statement, I was reminded of this episode from Star Trek on a similar issue. In short, the custom on the planet was for its citizens to conduct a ritual suicide at the age of 60, to "avoid old age, infirmity, indignity, dependence on others, and the cruel uncertainty about when the end would come".
The thing is, preventative health measures over the long-term have proven to save significantly more than the costs incurred over the life-time. So whilst you might complain lets say, £1000 treatment, if that treatment then saves us £10,000 down the line due to advances stages of a illness due to lack of treatment, then that is a saving of £9,000. There is then the added benefits of this on the economy, as it means that person can work more, earn more money, spend more money, which means as a society, we just saved even more. Given your background, you should have access to this evidence yourself to know I am not pulling this out of a hat. Could start picking things at random, even arguments such as Early Intervention Services for Psychosis are a good example, as in catching young people early during their most vulnerable, we prevent them from having to go into fully staffed inpatient units, become isolated and disconnected from society, being out of work, etc. So putting in money now means we will reap the benefits in the future. At the moment, we still do not have this fully implemented, so we are currently tackling those who are in that situation, and trying to provide support now for those who need assistance (in typical underfunded and undervalued NHS way).Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
There is a chronic bed shortage for Mental Health at the moment too, and some of the 'short term' decisions are actually costing the NHS significantly more money, due to how the system works. They close down hospitals in areas, combining them into larger hospitals with around 60% of the bed capacity of the Hospitals being closed down, then having to send off and pay for the patients to be in Private Hospitals. As you can imagine, the Private Hospitals charge 3x the rate of the trust providing the same service. So it is a practice of closing 100 beds, forcing those patients to occupy 100 private beds, so effectively costing the trust the price of 300 beds.
As for the statement about 'means others are going to die who had a better chance', this is not actually the case. What actually suffers are the non-life threatening treatments or further cuts to Mental Health services, even though Depression is the biggest cause of death in the country.
And while that may sound cynical, why invent a quick cure if a year-long treatment basically means you get a long-term customer?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Before you say that's a stupid conspiracy theory, remember that CEO who raised a drug's price 5000 times just to make more profit.
The price elasticity for a cure to a deadly illness is probably really, really low.
Privatising healthcare didn't go so well here, some things work but for some it just isn't affordable
Will funeral cost less?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Healthcare is incredibly expensive, all sorts of specialists have to there at all times. I also think that when it's futile you should stop trying at some point and make everything as comfortable as possible instead. Not because of the money but because it's the most humane thing to do. Euthanisia is a good thing we have here in the Netherlands, just skipping the hard parts (it's horrible to see in reality trust me). Privitasation mwah, you Brits have a case-study llaying around here for free because here we already did that, opinions are very varied. Specialists are very pleased because they get better equipment and more time, and patients not so much as they have to pay much more. I nearlylost my left eye in a match last year, I was treated exceptionally well. Costed me only 350 euro own risk with the insurance-company, real costs were probably tenfold that. Downside is that not everybody can just pay that (neither could I thanks mom). Upside here at least that if someone really can't afford it there is a special fund for them, needs balancing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Fixing those who are economically active is of course economically beneficial. But that is never the problem - the population is ageing and more and more treatments are there to help prolong existence (often not even quality of life). There is no economic benefit to this since everyone after retirement is costing vastly more - keeping an elderly patient alive for another 24 hours in a coma in ICU helps no one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Orphan diseases when a treatment is found costs hundreds of thousands of pounds a year.
That is not to say that there are areas of healthcare that could and should be treated better - that requires withdrawing money from other areas. This is just sensible.
Mental illness and drugs policy should be sorted out as both are a mess and a massive drag on society.
Since everyone dies, the costs of funerals are not that important - a nursing home can easily cost £100,000 in the UK annually.
~:smoking:
You are so cold-hearted Rory, but I secretly know that you are right
Thread title would be more Apt if Boris was PM.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
As it is, let's be reasonable here, the Tories are not "dead set" on Privatisation of the NHS, that's very much a fringe position in the UK - most Tory voters won't support it and nor with their MP's.
It's another example of a "nasty party" smear - i.e. bullshit that's been repeated so often people tend to believe it.
Aside from that, afaik the NHS already takes up the greatest portion of the Budget, why does it need more money?
It needs to spend its money more wisely, part of that is carefully considering who should be treated with a view to recovery and who is beyond recovering and simply being forced to persist in misery and suffering.
Of course, as with anything these days, the greatest cost is people.
If you think the current "Tory" government is ruthless you might ask me how I would deal with those junior doctors refusing to carry out their vocation until they were paid more money to work late.
Give them less than they demand? :wiseguy:Quote:
If you think the current "Tory" government is ruthless you might ask me how I would deal with those junior doctors refusing to carry out their vocation until they were paid more money to work late.
"If you think the current "Tory" government is ruthless you might ask me how I would deal with those junior doctors refusing to carry out their vocation until they were paid more money to work late." How? Their vocation, as you mentioned, so how? Is it capitalism, market laws? Apply only for railways workers and civil servants?
Talk to the moderators if you have a beef with the thread title. I posted it in the EU referendum thread before it got split off. You can see that in the title of the first few posts in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
They need more than £22,000 in their first year?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I do not think so, they want more money and to get it they were willing to sacrifice patient care.
Indeed. In the 1990's, junior doctors who worked the weekend worked Friday, Friday night, Saturday, Saturday night, Sunday, Sunday night and then Monday. They didn't complain and certainly not about patient safety! Cardiac Arrest was a great series that was based on the silly hours and dreadful support. Viewed as realistic by doctors and uncomfortably realistic by patients.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Why no complaints? Well... they did get paid for all these hours and if they were nice to the nurses their sleep wasn't too badly affected (I wouldn't have coped).
Now their hours are moved around to work Saturdays for no extra money and they are concerned they will shake with rage it'll put patients in danger (since complaining that they don't want to work Saturdays hardly wins sympathy).
~:smoking:
I get involved with a lot of health economics these days (not building the models admittedly). Capitalism works on money, not tears, fluffy teddy bears or good intentions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
That we let people die because we as a society refuse to face reality is IMO worse.
~:smoking:
"They need more than £22,000 in their first year? I do not think so, they want more money and to get it they were willing to sacrifice patient care." This was not the question. The question was how will you oblige doctors to work? One upon a time, governments were sending troopers to collect garbage, mine the mines etc. How do you do with doctors?
As Rory pointed out "Capitalism works on money, not tears, fluffy teddy bears or good intentions". I am against this view and think we can change it.
But until then that is the reality of this world.
We paid/rescued bankers who ruined the world economy, we are paying insane bonuses to parasite CEO whose only merit is to plunder industries, businesses and put hundred of thousands workers in the street in the name of making money (efficiency"), so why doctors should be an exception and work in the health industry and not having money of it? Chemical and pharmaceutical companies just do this.
I am sure it won't be as ruthless as you would like to be treated yourself in an overworked and underpaid position. The idea that Junior Doctors refusing to "work late" as if they are punctual on the dot is simply ludicrous. Every Junior Doctor I have met in 9 years on frontline NHS services pretty much stayed behind and worked for free, putting their patients first, on every single shift. if this was asked of you, you would be flailing your arms, shouting about why you have to remain behind when the clock is done. These are people working over 60 hours a week minimum. The idea you can even utter such a comment shows the complete isolation from the facts, naivety you have on the issue, and contempt you have for these people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
For a 64~ hour week, playing a very important role in managing the responsibility of peoples life and treatment in their hands? Basic maths works that out as £6.60 per hour. It is a complete steal, and Hospitals are taking them for muggins. You get better wages at Starbucks without having to do a very demanding and intensive studying for 7 years, racking up an ungodly amount of student debt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
You should be glad that people operate on a moral imperative to do work far below the financial reward, and having to work 50% more hours in the week too.
Personally, I would prefer Junior Doctors to get capped in the working time directive. But unfortunately, they are in so short supply, that the overtime costs will blow up the NHS budget more.
Do you really think those working conditions are satisfactory? You pretty much came out and said they are not, and you highlight this is not a modern thing, but something that has been going on for years. The fact you had to rely on good will of the Nurses to allow you to have a couple of hours asleep in a seat in a corner is definitely unacceptable. As a patient, do you really want your old junior doctor self treating you? They just got rudely prodded awake by their bleeper, coming to you half-a-sleep, rather groggy, and expecting them to make decision on your treatment/healthcare?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
You also said yourself, world runs on money, not crocodile tears or fluffy bunnies. If market forces were in effect, the wages of Junior Doctors would significantly increase, and they probably even get better hours and treatment. There would also probably be up-skilling of Nurses and other allied Professionals, with more Nurse Prescribers, and other, to reduce the burden on services.
Unsure - there's something of a tradition, at least in America, to overwork residents and "junior doctors" far more than is needed, on the grounds that it "builds character".Quote:
You also said yourself, world runs on money, not crocodile tears or fluffy bunnies. If market forces were in effect, the wages of Junior Doctors would significantly increase, and they probably even get better hours and treatment. There would also probably be up-skilling of Nurses and other allied Professionals, with more Nurse Prescribers, and other, to reduce the burden on services.
Technically the same protocols are employed in the fledgling of raw recruits in the military.
No it was not fine and probably unsafe - that's my point! The doctors had no issue with unsafe as long as the money was good. Now the hours are less pleasant they bemoan safety.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
~:smoking:
I realised that after my post, they seemed rather overworked in the TV series, Scrubs. I was thinking of the economics of short-on-supply and large demand for the services they offer. Though the fact Junior Doctors need to do the work to become Doctors in their own right, probably means they can be held over a barrel for ransom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I will have to concede that I haven't looked back at the previous campaigning done on behalf of Junior Doctors, I would have thought it was an issue that was constantly challenged with it both being unsafe and bad money, and it simply hit a boiling point with further cuts. I have to be honest, the job they have looks rough and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. From what I have seen, they deserve to have less hours, as it would be more humane on them, and would lead to increased patient safety. (I have no issue if they choose to work more, that is then a choice.)Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
"The doctors had no issue with unsafe as long as the money was good. Now the hours are less pleasant they bemoan safety." So, you do agree that now it is both unsafe and crap money.
So, they are right to go on strike, as one of these two reasons is enough by itself?
If they want to bitch about pay and conditions, then do so. I'm fine with that. Although given it is a final salary pension, relatively early retirement along with the possibility of vast sums of money for private work I'm not sure how bad the pay is.
But they are hiding behind safety whilst making things less safe for those they supposedly care for.
~:smoking:
"But they are hiding behind safety whilst making things less safe for those they supposedly care for." They are not hiding. They make it clear that money is crap for this job, as far as I read Metro newspaper (free newspaper).
Well, in life, you can decide to do tiring and dangerous jobs if the money is good. But, it money is not, you can decide it is not worth. And it is in your right to strike if the conditions you did agree change.
And, of course, after Brexit, no one can really think UK will hire some European trained doctors/nurse, because, well, UK voted against EU immigration. So, either UK will hired none European doctors (not good for the ones who vote Brexit on the grounds of controlling immigration) or you will have to give doctors want they want. Actual capitalist "laws" market resolving problems in action.
Wasn't the reason of Brexit, taking back control on UK decisions?
And all this even before Brexit!!!
The other bit is: "they supposedly care for.". Well, some of them could say it was a choice to make good money, nothing to do with "taking care of", like the one working in the City. Good job, a bit risky but well paid etc, so if not well paid, strike. You try to impose a moral judgement when you are the one who wrote "world runs on money, not crocodile tears or fluffy bunnies".
In one hand you claimed money is every thing, but an the other hand you suddenly shift to a moral position, as if some jobs should work on ethical grounds when others should work on "making money as much as you can without any sort of back-draw".
You have to choose. Well, sort of...
He's a member of the current government. If he was serious about the promise he could resign in protest. At the minimum some explanation is required.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Well, the logical answer is that UK is still part of EU, so nothing changed in that regard. Britain still pays that money to EU.
Of course, evem if it weren't for that, Britain still wont be able to transfer that money to NHS for two reasons:
1) the sum is lower than advertised
2) UK would be forced to spend programes that are now funded by EU
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Re 1) -- that is government spin 101, so I have no doubt you are correct
re 2) -- I would be surprised if the UK gets more from the EU than it contributes. Moreover, you don't note that they have the option of discontinuing the program referenced
re 2) -- As do poor people, and somehow they still don't leave a society that makes them contribute more than they get back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
If there were actually an effect of the EU dragging the UK down, it certainly can't be found in the economic statistics:
http://www.inet.ox.ac.uk/news/Brexit
How much of that money they "save" will be left once all the benefits are actually gone?Quote:
The UK’s growth has exceeded the US while tracking it, even since the crisis of 2008. This makes it hard to argue that the EU is dragging the UK down. Alternatively, compare this to the UK’s performance during the “glory days” of the Empire from 1872 to 1914. Back then Britain’s per capita growth was only 0.9% per year, in contrast to its robust 2.1% since joining the EU.
And about keeping the benefits, and the nasty EU wanting to take the benefits away, even with citizenship and other things people usually agree that with benefits, you also get responsibilities. Why would EU membership be about cherry-picking your benefits? That's just greedy.
The bare numbers don't tell everything. The UK government has a tendency to concentrate funding on London. The EU makes sure the provinces get their share of funding. Hence the southwest voting to leave the EU, then promptly asking the UK government for reassurances that EU funding will be made up for. They're idiots who deserve every bit of pain that they will get from shooting themselves in the foot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
"re 2) -- I would be surprised if the UK gets more from the EU than it contributes. Moreover, you don't note that they have the option of discontinuing the program referenced" Well. That was a part of the big lie from the Brexiters. UK earned money because access to EU market, the City doesn't need permit to exchange in EU etc... That was saved money. If UK doesn't succeed to have these fees/barriers out, the City will move, so will the foreign investors. For the same amount of person/offices better to work within a 400 millions customers than in a 60 millions one.
I am not a lover of the actual EU, but you might notice in which state were Portugal after the Saint Lazare's dictatorship and Spain after Franco's dictatorship, Greece after the Colonels' dictatorship etc. But, thanks to the money from EU, these countries developed. Then, the EU imposed economical models wich destroyed what the same EU just built, and this is the EU I don't want.
1) He is correct, no doubt about it. The UK's government statistic agency has repeatedly debunked the figure cited, yet the Leave camp continued to use it during the referendum campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
2) The point is not that the UK receives more than it gets in return, but that part of the UK's contribution is reimbursed by EU investment.
The UK's net contribution is about half of the figure cited by the Leave camp, IIRC. Furthermore the general expectation is that leaving the EU single market is going to result in economic shrinkage, leading to a net financial loss, making cuts to the NHS far more likely than any extra money.
I don't see why, that can just as easily be handled by an independant nation-state.. The only diffrence is where they get it from, and the UK is a net payer in the EUQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
And what investment there is will be concentrated in London, for that is what British governments tend to do. The provinces will be screwed two ways, by the loss of EU investment, and by the redirection of UK investment to London. The softest landing will be felt in London and the Home Counties. The bits outside the old Angle and Saxon kingdoms will be left to rot. Serves them right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
So, when the negotiations begin regarding the exit process and its aftermath -- which negotiations will be harsh to the point of combative* on the part of the EU team -- will the UK cave, rescind the vote and/or replace it, and go back to being what the EU wants?
*maybe not to the point of arguing about the shape of the table a la Paris in the 1970s, but I would expect it to be rough and unpleasant as a means of convincing any other shirkers that it is not worth it.
The conditions are already known. For access to the common market, the UK must accept the four freedoms as a package (as a minimum, plus membership fees). Freedom of movement was the main reason for the Leave vote (hence the recent rise in xenophobic, racist and homophobic attacks, with the far right encouraged by the vote), which the Tories have said they won't be compromising on. So the four freedoms won't be accepted by the UK government, which means the UK will lose access to the common market. Which is a bugger for exporters, as 50% of our exports went to the EU. It will mean stuff from the EU will increase in price, thus driving up prices, while wages will have to go down in order for exporters to absorb tariffs whilst remaining competitive. Tax revenue will also go down (quite drastically) as financial services leave the UK for places with access to the common market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
All of that was known before the vote. And Frag will hand wave all of that away with "You'll be fine" and "It's worth it".
I blame April GlaspieQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Your exports will be cheaper and you think that is a bad thing? Nobody is going to kick you out of that 50% of exports, that's hysterical scaremoning, that common market will still be there. The UK will only be releaved from a very costly overhead and the EU knows it. Eurocrats tend to forget that Europe is a continent and the EU a political construction. These exports do not go to Brussels. They go to Europe. And yes some things will be more expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
You wot? Is this a spectacular case of strawman building, or do you not understand what you read?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
It will cost less to export from the UK what's so hard about it. That's how Southern-European countries used to keep afloat, devaluating their coin to make importing from them more attractive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I am certainly not the only who is optimistic about the future of your country, maybe overly so
Europe as continent is a political construction.Quote:
Europe is a continent
Err, the UK is a net importer. Yet another argument from you that takes no notice of the reality of the people on the ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
And they suddenly won't want to trade with you anymore? Terminating existing contracts is a costly afair, it's best for everyone that they stay intact, and a bad thing to have to reorganise a perfectly well organised system. I never said it wouldn't get worse for some people, it also got worse for coal-shoverers when trains got invented and Thatcher broke the back of worker-unions who wanted job-guarenties for coal shovellers. Cheap example and probably not even true I know but you probably get the idea. You are in new territory make the most out of it. I know it won't work out for everyone but there is no need to make it come across as if I have any pleassure in that, not that you say that directly but the contempt is receivedQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
As for OT, we have privitised healthcare and it's a bad idea, you got a perfect case-study here in the Netherlands on that. It got better for some, but unaffordable for others, especially people who need help for addictions and mental diseases are screwed.
But one day the conracts will expire and they won't prolong them. It might chronologically coincide with the moment when Brexit is fait accompli.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
On the highlighted bit: your contempt for "coal shoverers (sic)" who were superseded by the invention of trains is noted. Anyone with knowledge of the history of trains knows that coal and railways went hand in hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
When electrical trains became the norm there was no need for coal shovelers anymore, yet the unions wanted to have two aboard anyway. How silly is that. No contempt for coal-shovelers whatsoever coming from me, it was really hard work. So was lighting up streetlights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I don't remember firemen in Thatcher's day. I remember guards, but I don't remember firemen. You're probably mixing up coal mines (which Thatcher closed) and coal powered trains.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
No, as I already said I don't know if it's actually true, must have been way before Thatcher that such demands were made if it is. Point is, something is always bad for someone, I just took out a rediculous exampleQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
As a whole, Thatcher kinda saved the UK, and absolutily not by pleasing everyone, for some it was disastrous, I will not say that it wasn't at the expense of others that would be daft. The biggest concern, the fall of major banks is not justified just yet. After a short burst of panick the market hold up better than even the biggest optimists expected.
And my repeated point is that, whatever the good and bad points are, your assurances that it's all worth it hold no water, as you don't have to face them yourself. You've made repeated assurances, including here, that things will be better, even while a cursory examination of what you say shows that you don't know what you're talking about, and that your assurances don't take into account the reality on the ground, especially for less well off people. Hence my comparisons of you with the neolibs of the 1990s, who made the same assurances about Yeltsin's Russia, until the Russian people gave up on the neolibs' fantasies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
You don't know it either, we will just have to wait and see who's right no? If it goes wrong I am in trouble as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I am really not out to wave away your concerns but I expect a positive outcome. Naturally I can have it completily wrong.
"After a short burst of panick the market hold up better than even the biggest optimists expected." The market hold because the fall of the Pounds (currency in which they pay their bills in UK) make their profit higher as they trade in USD or Euro. So, their costs mechanically fall of 10 % but they can still deal within EU. And the bigger optimists NEVER expected a fall, but a surge of trade from Australia, Botswana, India and others countries, surge which at that moment still failed to show-up.
The reality is prices for consumers are going up, salaries not, jobs are still heavily based on temps, zero-hours contracts and self-employment. I am temp now for around 4 years. My wife is finally almost at the level she was 10 years ago.
As Thatcher, savour of the UK, you should go and ask the regions completely devastated by her policy, turning England in a services shop. Cameron did finish her work, in blocking the EU decision to protect iron market against China, therefore no more national industries/factories are now working in UK. As not every one can be hair-dressers (example of service, nothing against hair-dressers), and themselves cutting the hairs of workers in factories, they will loose their income, as workers in all others services... Note that the barbers/hair dresser at the corner is a Turkish, anyway.
The brexiters (on the right wing) were nostalgic of the trade of an Empire, forgetting that the subjects of the Empire were not free to trade with England.
And the next nuclear plant will be built by EDF (France) and China, great democracy under the sun.
Both the surge and the fall aren't there, OK the biggest optimists were too optimistic but there aren't many of them. Anyone realistic should expect it to hurt, but a jab of a knife is very unlikely to kill you, hurts though of course. There is no precedent to base anything on, for boredom's sake, we can still see the broken window-theory in effect, that's not someone told me it is what I think with my very limited understanding of the actual situation and all the perfectly justified redicule that comes with it, maybe I have too much trust in my judgement but it worked so far for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Unlike you, Brenus lives in the UK, and faces the consequences of the Brexit that you're so keen on. If you're so keen on the broken window, join us and sit in the broken glass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
My reasons for aplauding the brexit go beyond your situation I will admit that but that doesn't mean I wish you any harm. Can't shake the feeling that you think I would be enjoying it if your situation gets worse. Some would though and those are the people who want the brexit to fail, not meQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I get the feeling that you care not a jot if our situation gets worse, because this is all an intellectual exercise to you, where you get to watch the results of your stated experiment without the hassle of facing the consequences in person. Just like the neolibs with Russia in the 1990s. Hence your repeated stating of the broken glass theory, where others have to sit in the broken glass, while you get to document the results from a safe distance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Broken glass is nothing but a musing, a what if. Why so hostile to people who mean you no harm whatsoever. Do i find it interesting, yes. Why wouldn't I.it has never happened that a country volunteers to be out of the EU. That doesn't make me indifferent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
"Both the surge and the fall aren't there" The fall IS there. Each time I put petrol in my car, it is there, when I go shopping, when I can't go out anymore because we have to cut our expenses in order to compensate the cost of living.
Even the brexiters feel they were conned now. NHS going down, Justice system in tatters, no more nurses for elderly people, teachers having enough. And this just because the IDEA of Brexit won.
There is no one day with warnings and examples in newspapers how the situation is going from bad to worst. And Brexiters saying finally that it will be harsh but it is worth of it, even they are not f*****ing able to give one sample of what they want to get rid of.
It is now obvious that the "winners" had no idea what to do with their victory, no plans whatsoever...
It is partially because they lied up to the teeth, but as well because the leavers had different reasons to do so.
There are no representatives of the left part that voted to leave the EU in the actual government. So, because Cameron did cooked the books, May is now in no position to blame EU for the deficit, as it is now obvious that EU has nothing to do with it. The cuts did the job.
Cameron and May did agree with EU, in term of policy. Free trade, less workers 'rights, more money for the riches, less taxes for big companies. That why Cameron did get an agreement with Merkel, they agreed with this policy (remember at the same time the Brexiters were arguing how EU was giving too much protection to workers, in France millions were demonstrating against EU destroying what left for workers' right and social welfare).
So, what now for May: Everything UK wants UK will have, and had before. How to explain to the brexiters: This was not EU, this was us, in full agreement with EU.
Headline: A&E, cancer and maternity units to close in major NHS overhaul
In other news...
Buckingham Palace to get £369m refurbishment (thanks to Royal Mismanagement)
Priorities.
Their priorities are entirely sound; as bad as the NHS cuts are being responsible for buckingham palace going up in flames or collapsing would cause a hell of a lot more damage to the government's stability.
You complain that brexiteers blame the EU for what you say is the results of autonamous government actions just after blaming brexit for the same government actions not three paragraphs before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
"You complain that brexiteers blame the EU for what you say is the results of autonamous government actions just after blaming brexit for the same government actions not three paragraphs before." You lost me here. Is there a word missing?
The States belonging to EU are sovereign. So all "directives" by Brussel have to be approved by the States and Government. The associates states have a different status...
The various governments always blamed EU for all unpopular measures, even the one UK initiated and started. EU was never in disagreement with Cameron and Tories. Like them EU is against UNions, consumers protection, minimum wages and social protection. EU agrees that bankers should be exempt to pay taxes (private profits and commun debts), same for big companies, workers and middle classes should be taxed in order to paid police, fire-fighters, hospital and roads.
So yes, the brexiters will discovered (and start to do so) that nothing will change in term of laws and order in UK, as UK won't become a nice social Kingdom.
I understand the underlying sentiment, being very much the proponent of French solution to monarchy if they refuse to go peacefully, but let's be fair - 369m over 10 years or so is a drop in the ocean for NHS (120b annually).Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
The money from the Royal Estate (15% per year) is meant to be used on maintenance and repairs. Which it was neglected. In fact, it has been suggested previously that if the Palace was open to Tourism across the year bar special occasions, this would be able to fund the repairs and maintenance too, but this was refused by the Royal Family. Instead, they are going to get 25% per year. Which means less money out of everyone elses budgets due to Royal Mismanagement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
I am also aware of the so called 'Pro-Monarchy' economic argument that usually contains a ton fallacies such as returning the entire Royal Estate from the Treasury back into the now Ex-Monarchies hands (I mean.. really?).
Yes who could ever believe such nonsense, that breaking the rent allocation agreement would actually revert the property's incomes back to the legal owner instead of the government keeping everything because we say so.
The royal estate is the collection of land george the third once had sole ownership of and is legally owned by his decendants, it is only by the condition of the monarchy's continuation that the government sees the majority of it's incomes, the most a republican britain would see would be a fraction in property tax.
Government does have the right of nationalisation. It doesn't occur often as it tends to make the owners upset and other businesses can get wary depending on why and who. Private enterprises won't care if it is the royal family because they kind of see that belonging to the state anyway. So they have full right of 'because we say so'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Ah so the first act of a republican britain will be an act of tyranny? We may as well nationalize every piece of property in the nation that makes a profit, seeing as private ownership is apparantly something that is to be confiscated whenever the government desires more money.
360m over 10 years, or 36m a year. Not a huge amount given the size of Buckingham Palace, the miss-management claim is also debatable given that HM Queen isn't allowed to use her private wealth to conduct major repairs and the Sovereign Grant doesn't allow for major overhauls (like replacing 40-year old boiler systems.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
As to the NHS:
"Many of the plans make clear that widespread staff shortages are another key driver. They hope that by concentrating sometimes scarce medical personnel in fewer places they can ensure consultant presence more often than otherwise and so help realise Hunt’s ambition of a more 24/7 NHS."
Doctors are already paid plenty, and they aren't driven into the ground like they used to be. So what's the problem? Possibly too many of them lack a service ethos and are moving to the Dark Side, or maybe we just aren't importing enough doctors from India anymore because they feel they're better off there.
Maybe it's just that society is collapsing.
It is not really tyranny, since it is reclaiming what the Tax-payers paid for anyway. There is a massive difference between that situation and any other within the country. Even then, I wouldn't completely strip them of anything and just cast them on the streets. I would give them fair compensation and only claim what belongs to the state is for the state. Any pet projects or private use houses they can keep, they also have their various branding and ips. So they will live happy lives as rich millionaires still, especially with their influence and networking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
"We may as well nationalize every piece of property in the nation that makes a profit, seeing as private ownership is apparantly something that is to be confiscated whenever the government desires more money." Well, until now the UK "nationalized" when private sector by greed bankrupted the entire economy and re-privatised when taxpayers have paid the bills. It might be a nice move to try to reverse the trend.:yes:
pah, when has britain ever cared about property rights!Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Property rights are 99.9% about defence of privilege.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Only if one separates the concept of property and the concept of person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Why does that make me think of slavery? :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I was talking more in terms of Locke. Property accumulated by the capital and labor of a person is a product of a person's efforts (time) spend on its acquisition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Thus, the burglar taking my TV is, by extension, taking the 2 hours of my life I spent earning the money to acquire it as well as some amortized portion of my education/training/etc. that fitted me to do the work for which I was compensated and with which compensation I purchased that TV.
Thanks, but that only works up to the point where the money multiplies itself so fast that you can't even work fast enough to earn it. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I mean at some amount of wealth, gaining more wealth is not quite coupled to effort anymore. At school (IIRC) they told us CEOs earn a lot because of their huge responsibility, but seeing how they get 20 million farewell gifts after they ruined the company, responsibility can't be it, because they have none. :shrug: