The Wish They Were All Dead Tory Cunt Thread

[HCZ_Reborn]

I would like to know what the over payed NHS directors are doing about the 'lack of funds'?

Seems to me the NHS have had the most money pumped into them than ever before since covid, and the blame falls at the feet of the government and not these supposed experts that run the system and distribute the funds.

The NHS was established under the principle of rationed health care, basically only use it if it’s an emergency…it wasn’t meant for the every day use that it is now especially servicing the amount of coffin dodgers.

It’s also become a Quasi religion. That private investment is seen as akin to privatisation.


Another reason it doesn’t work is the trust system there’s no interconnectivity between Trusts.


And a hospital that performs highly can be dragged down by having its funding rerouted to another one in the trust that isn’t meeting the required standards


You do need a level of bureaucracy for a big institution like that, but if we want the NHS to do all we want of it and to not pay anymore in tax we are going to need to accept more private involvement

[Niall_Quinn]

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...ies/2019-08-29



Compared with other countries we're not investing that well. Although I'd certainly agree there's a lot of money wasted in our system.

Those stats you are using are laughable. It's like the climate change lunacy that poses as science. You take apples and razorback gorillas and compare them without so much as a blush. By "you" I mean the people who tell you what's reality. France and the U.S. on the same list? Absolute nonsense. Percentage spending of GDP? When GDP is a moving target and "spending" in measured in a constantly inflated currency? Sure, the "experts" will say this has all been adjusted for this, that or the other. But then you have to look at how those adjustments are calculated and you quickly find that's all bollocks too.

Here's how you compare in the real world.

Queues in France, queues in Germany, queues in the States and the inability to even get into a queue in the UK. You can't even see a fucking GP unless you win the 8am lottery. Even then, you see a nurse.

God forbid you have an accident because you'll probably die during triage waiting OUTSIDE the A&E - in all weathers.

Another measure. How many people go into hospital with one ailment and then die of another?

Another measure. How frequently are the hospitals cleaned?

Another measure. How many people are slumped across waiting room seats or stacked up in corridors waiting for treatment?

Another measure. How many new private/ corporate facilities have been built inside hospitals compared to patient facilities?

Etc, etc.

By every real world measure the NHS has been plunged into an ocean of shit and we now experience one of the most expensive and worst so-called healthcare services in the developed world, no matter how much cash is dragged out of us for the good of grandma (who they murdered in her bed during the Covid crisis).

But let's instead let think tanks and politicians and "The Science" people, who would never pull stuff right out of their arseholes to justify their actions and benefit themselves, tell us how the reality is panning out. Let's not listen to nurses telling us how shit it has become. Or patients with a thousand yard state who have finally emerged from the A&E with zero resolution.

I know - what does the BBC say? Let's go straight to God and ask how lucky we are.

[Niall_Quinn]

That's a straw man in two ways.

First way. You characterise it as me endorsing the system, I don't see it that way.
I've used the analogy of a final before where you basically want both teams to lose. That's not how football works, someone is going to win so you might as well support the least bad option. I mean, you can just disengage completely - the equivalent of not voting - but that isn't going to stop someone winning.
This is not a good analogy because supporting Liverpool vs Spurs in the CL Final, because the alternative is unthinkable, isn't going to have any impact on whether they win or not. But I guess you could argue that with our voting system in many constituencies voting makes bugger all difference anyway, so maybe it's not that bad an analogy.

I don't endorse our government and didn't vote for them. I don't endorse our voting system and when I had an opportunity to I voted to change it, but I have no power to change these things.

Second way you've strawmanned me is I don't think anything is your fault. What I am saying is IF you're going to say a system is wrong then it is incumbent on you to have some thoughts on what is better. So, I think our system is wrong but I have pretty clear thoughts on how it can be improved. Which are:
- FPTP is a bad system, I'd like to see a more proportional system.
- There should be more consequence for MPs who are incompetent or corrupt.


Well, present it and we'll see.
Your alternative to government appears to be "no government". OK. Well if that's true I'm going to need a bit more detail on how you think anything gets done, who sets the rules which govern our society, who enforces them, etc.


What is the right thing? What are you doing?
I'm not stigmatising you, I don't even know what you're doing. I know you don't vote. That's your right of course, I think your reasoning is faulty and I don't think that's going to make the slightest bit of difference. What are you actually doing?

So you've been smoked out at least.

Straw man? Pull the other one. You're the guy endorsing evil, whether it's the lesser or greater (makes no difference to evil).

It's like hiring a Nazi baby-sitter who likes beating the kids or a Nazi baby-sitter who prefers to molest them. I'll go with the violent Nazi rather than the perv, how about you? Only two choices available and it's simply not in my power to find a Nazi baby-sitter who just looks after the kids.

The "fault" I attributed to myself was in the context of your avoidance and reversal, not in any actual harm that might improbably occur due to doing the right thing. But you know that. Because you can't stand up any sort of argument based on principle you always need to run to what you insist is inevitable practicality.

Then you pretend we haven't discussed remedies to the rotten system for YEARS. ALL of them impractical by your measure, because people are fundamentally bad according to you, the Christian. So they need REALLY BAD people in charge to stop bad things happening. Your so-called argument is circular, prevents any kind of real world change, is an apology for your own complacency and is a huge impediment to serious people who might want to get serious things done. The mindless mob is the biggest barrier to change.

You'd press an unprincipled position until hell froze over. And you seem to think, by doing it, you are the voice of reason. When, in fact, your "reasonable" answer to everything is let's change nothing except the arrangement of the deck chairs because there's no alternative. Do you ever stop to wonder just how much the criminals in charge might appreciate your efforts if they knew you were alive?

[Letters]

Those stats you are using are laughable.

And yet in the rest of your post you outline the consequences of the underinvestment that the stats I posted outline
You seem to be managing to argue with me even when we're saying the exact same thing.

It's funny with the NHS. At times it seems completely broken. I mean, you're right, you can't get a GP appointment for L nor M. Waiting lists are ridiculous. But at other times it seems completely remarkable, and they're doing their best. Recently my daughter's eczema was playing up, MrsL called the GP, predictably couldn't get an appointment but when MrsL explained the situation they found her an appointment at a nearby practice, she was seen that day and got the ointments she needed all for free. Last year she (the daughter) ended up in hospital for a couple of nights. She can get alarmingly wheezy when she's got a cold. MrsL took her to a walk in, the redirected them to an A&E in a different hospital, she was admitted and the care was excellent. Yes, there are inefficiencies along the way - MrsL had to wait an irritatingly long time to be seen at the 2nd hospital, given that she'd been told they'd be expecting her, when we were waiting for her to be discharged it was clear they were stretched and struggling to find a doctor to assess her before that. But given that, the NHS is still pretty remarkable at times. It's just clearly not able to deal with the demands of the ageing population we now have.

[Niall_Quinn]

The NHS was established under the principle of rationed health care, basically only use it if it’s an emergency…it wasn’t meant for the every day use that it is now especially servicing the amount of coffin dodgers.

It’s also become a Quasi religion. That private investment is seen as akin to privatisation.


Another reason it doesn’t work is the trust system there’s no interconnectivity between Trusts.


And a hospital that performs highly can be dragged down by having its funding rerouted to another one in the trust that isn’t meeting the required standards


You do need a level of bureaucracy for a big institution like that, but if we want the NHS to do all we want of it and to not pay anymore in tax we are going to need to accept more private involvement

Wrong. By it's very definition the NHS MAY NOT have any private investment. Because it is not supposed to run at a profit. The profit materialises in the health of the nation which, in turn, provides many other benefits. That's the principle.

OR, if you want private investment you must have the American system. There is nothing in-between because the in-between transforms the rationale that underpins the service and redirects profit from society to private individuals. So you end up with the American system anyway, only at a large, protracted and expensive cost to the people who gradually lose out in the provision of healthcare in the process.

That's not ME saying we should eject private investment, because that's the ONLY option in my world where the government is disbanded entirely. But your argument, like Blair's and Brown's, is self-defeating and just plain wrong, if you actually want a healthcare services that delivers on the aims most of us understand to be beneficial.

[Niall_Quinn]

And yet in the rest of your post you outline the consequences of the underinvestment that the stats I posted outline
You seem to be managing to argue with me even when we're saying the exact same thing.

It's funny with the NHS. At times it seems completely broken. I mean, you're right, you can't get a GP appointment for L nor M. Waiting lists are ridiculous. But at other times it seems completely remarkable, and they're doing their best. Recently my daughter's eczema was playing up, MrsL called the GP, predictably couldn't get an appointment but when MrsL explained the situation they found her an appointment at a nearby practice, she was seen that day and got the ointments she needed all for free. Last year she (the daughter) ended up in hospital for a couple of nights. She can get alarmingly wheezy when she's got a cold. MrsL took her to a walk in, the redirected them to an A&E in a different hospital, she was admitted and the care was excellent. Yes, there are inefficiencies along the way - MrsL had to wait an irritatingly long time to be seen at the 2nd hospital, given that she'd been told they'd be expecting her, when we were waiting for her to be discharged it was clear they were stretched and struggling to find a doctor to assess her before that. But given that, the NHS is still pretty remarkable at times. It's just clearly not able to deal with the demands of the ageing population we now have.

No, I'm picking up on the longstanding habit you have of presenting "facts" to support your arguments. At least pick some actual facts if you are going to do that.

[Niall_Quinn]

And yet in the rest of your post you outline the consequences of the underinvestment that the stats I posted outline
You seem to be managing to argue with me even when we're saying the exact same thing.

It's funny with the NHS. At times it seems completely broken. I mean, you're right, you can't get a GP appointment for L nor M. Waiting lists are ridiculous. But at other times it seems completely remarkable, and they're doing their best. Recently my daughter's eczema was playing up, MrsL called the GP, predictably couldn't get an appointment but when MrsL explained the situation they found her an appointment at a nearby practice, she was seen that day and got the ointments she needed all for free. Last year she (the daughter) ended up in hospital for a couple of nights. She can get alarmingly wheezy when she's got a cold. MrsL took her to a walk in, the redirected them to an A&E in a different hospital, she was admitted and the care was excellent. Yes, there are inefficiencies along the way - MrsL had to wait an irritatingly long time to be seen at the 2nd hospital, given that she'd been told they'd be expecting her, when we were waiting for her to be discharged it was clear they were stretched and struggling to find a doctor to assess her before that. But given that, the NHS is still pretty remarkable at times. It's just clearly not able to deal with the demands of the ageing population we now have.

Because they haven't started fucking the kids over yet. They know what sort of backlash there will be if even kids can't get the time of day. But that will come too, once this new version of the NHS fully morphs into the tired old shell that characterised the gutted and looted public services of the 70s.

These things happen over decades, not within the lifetime of parliaments - and that in itself is a pretty fucking huge clue.

[Niall_Quinn]

And yet in the rest of your post you outline the consequences of the underinvestment that the stats I posted outline
You seem to be managing to argue with me even when we're saying the exact same thing.

It's funny with the NHS. At times it seems completely broken. I mean, you're right, you can't get a GP appointment for L nor M. Waiting lists are ridiculous. But at other times it seems completely remarkable, and they're doing their best. Recently my daughter's eczema was playing up, MrsL called the GP, predictably couldn't get an appointment but when MrsL explained the situation they found her an appointment at a nearby practice, she was seen that day and got the ointments she needed all for free. Last year she (the daughter) ended up in hospital for a couple of nights. She can get alarmingly wheezy when she's got a cold. MrsL took her to a walk in, the redirected them to an A&E in a different hospital, she was admitted and the care was excellent. Yes, there are inefficiencies along the way - MrsL had to wait an irritatingly long time to be seen at the 2nd hospital, given that she'd been told they'd be expecting her, when we were waiting for her to be discharged it was clear they were stretched and struggling to find a doctor to assess her before that. But given that, the NHS is still pretty remarkable at times. It's just clearly not able to deal with the demands of the ageing population we now have.

What about the boatloads of foreigners pitching up? If what you say is true and our services can't cope with the people who paid for those services over their entire lives (or FRAUD if you want to describe the situation succinctly - because we CAN afford a war in Ukraine or 20bill on tech to fuck with civil rights) - why are we adding to the demand?

Leave aside the stupid excuses coming from self-interested wankers in the Westminster bubble for a minute. On a practical level, why are we adding to the demand. When will the current situation constitute an emergency for our people that ought to be prioritised above so-called emergencies experienced by aliens? And, leaving aside a huge number of these aliens aren't even refugees fleeing from war and persecution, just working with the ones who are - what benefit is there is continuing to support a system that 100% AGREES (not a single deviation) that we should provoke war in Ukraine thereby creating the so-called obligation to admit people fleeing from that war? Yeah, yeah, yeah, Putin started the war, we had nothing to do with it, blah and blah. But in the real world I mean - like when Boris flew out to scupper peace negotiations? Oh wait - you might answer that was all Boris' fault. So will you then claim Sir Blair MkII will stand up to the yanks and tell them to fuck off when they issue their orders?

Or, put another way, when is logic, reason and judicious prioritisation and action actually going to enter the political debate, let alone be enacted? Politics in the mainstream is the bitter debate of symptoms and the unwavering conviction that all causes are inevitable. By this measure politicians make themselves the solution rather than the problem. And THAT's their manifesto, in a nutshell. It's crazy anyone could ever buy into it.

[Niall_Quinn]

He's posting here of course

Yes, and?

Or are you implying I expect to get a result by ONLY posting here, like those who don't want things to change so can amuse themselves by limiting themselves to social activity and leaving the big boy decisions to their betters?

[Letters]

What about the boatloads of foreigners pitching up?

Didn't you hear? We've got control of our borders now and we've got an extra £350m a week to spend on the NHS

(You know most immigrants come here when they're fairly young and actually add to the economy, right? A lot of them are keeping the NHS running in various capacities)