[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I disagree I think it was a double bluff, besides how could the PM and the secretary of state of a European country be seen to personally back brexit?
It would've annihilated European confidence in the UK whichever way the vote went.

Well I'll have to bow to your greater mystic Meg knowledge of the murky workings of Cameron's mind here. But if as you imply he really wanted Brexit, why did he cut and run so fast when the vote went his way?

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

No, you couldn't say that to me because I did read it that's how I know it was Sarah Wollaston that refutes the claim by the Red Cross not 'the NHS'.

The chief executive of the British red cross reiterates their response to the humanitarian crisis here....

“The British Red Cross is on the front line, responding to the humanitarian crisis in our hospital and ambulance services across the country,” said Red Cross chief executive Mike Adamson in a statement.'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7515801.html

Well this was a quote from Professor Keith Willet from the top of the article 2 who apparently an NHS acute care specialist director. No mention of Sarah Wollaston from him.

"Professor Keith Willett, medical director for acute care at NHS England, said he did not think the service was at the level of a humanitarian crisis, but admitted demand was at its highest level ever and staff were under "a level of pressure we haven't seen before"."

It's winter, we have a large aging population. It's not unreasonable to assume there will be greater pressures is it?

Another quote that has nothing to do with Sarah Wollaston.

"The NHS has disputed claims from the Red Cross that there is a "humanitarian crisis" in its hospitals in England.
One of NHS England's specialist directors said he thought the service was not "at that point" of crisis, but admitted demand was higher than ever.
The Red Cross helps some hospitals with patient transport and provides care for patients who have returned home."

I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that the NHS needs more cash, it always does. But you seen to claim it was making a profit until this year in one breath, then claim it's under such strain it's a humanitarian crisis. I don't think the 'news' is really backing up the claims. I am not sure why you think the chief executive of the red cross knows more than the other people quoted.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Wrong

'NHS hospitals will end the financial year in the red for the first time in eight years, according to official figures, with 26 loss-making trusts reporting a combined deficit of £456.8m.

The University Hospitals of Leicester NHS trust has run up the largest deficit: £39.8m.'


'Exclusive The joint venture between a private company and the Department of Health that processes payments to GP practices has dramatically improved its finances last year, with an 88% boost in profits.

Annual accounts seen by Pulse show that NHS Shared Business Services grew its profits from £4.2m in 2011 to £7.8m in 2012, with the organisation citing the ‘successful launch’ of a national payment system for the NHS a key driver behind the healthy balance sheet.

The growth in annual profits came on the back of a 30% rise in revenues from £62.4m to £81.1m, and after CCGs were mandated to use the company to process payments as a condition for authorisation.
The large jump in profits compares with an 11% increase in profits last year,'

http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/your-pra...004002.article

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...me-eight-years

I don't think the articles you have posted really explain themselves or the figures quoted or where they come from very well. I should also point out they are two and three years old so I'm not sure how they apply to this year.

As far as I am aware 98% of NHS funding comes from the state through taxes and national insurance. If it needs government funding I'm not sure how or where it can be seen as making a profit and making a profit on what? If it is making a profit, then surely to be a profit, that profit would be greater than the funding to be seen as a profit. Under that premise the NHS wouldn't have needed any state funding for the last however many years. Unless when they say loss they mean that they have spent more than they were given. It's not specially clear where the profit and loss come from or goes to and how it relates to the budget given. There must be tons of departments and branches in the NHS. The article seems to relate to hospital trusts only and is about overspending of budgets rather than finishing the year (2 years ago) within the budget given.

Every year new medicines and treatments are developed, items, drugs, treatments, procedures get more expensive to do. The NHS needs large funding and this is not something that will ever change. It seems to me that the problem is finding the money and what Paul to rob to pay Peter.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Most of the leadership of the Brexit ship have abandoned the issue now that their chance at Downing Street has come and gone. They didn't have a plan for Brexit despite pushing for it endlessly and as soon as it was time for them to step up they passed the buck for damage limitation purposes.

The EU is not perfect (never said it was) but comparisons like that only serve a purpose if they change the facts of the discussion and Greece doesn't do that which is why I don't see it as something worth discussing as it takes the focus off of why we were discussing Human Rights in the first place rather than enhancing the discussion as a whole.

Aren't Greeks humans with rights?

Who has abandoned ship? Johnson is in the Foreign office, Davis is Minister for Brexit. Aren't they still there?
Gove wasn't given a job but he was a backstabber so you can understand May not wanting him sitting behind her.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

There's as many people who would be happy with a soft Brexit as there are people who would want a complete Brexit. The was barely anything in it in the votes so you're basically going to alienate one half of the country or the other either way. If it was me, I'd choose to alienate the side that are easily won back by simply mentioning immigration. Let's face it, the public voted for four more years of the Tories after a horrific four years of a Tory led coalition. They have short memories.

As long as there is a Brexit, the government will have fulfilled their end regardless of whether it's a complete or soft Brexit.

Also remember that the referendum was just a choice of leaving or staying, not, if in the case of a Leave victory, whether or not we should completely break it off or go for the softer option.

There was no hard/soft option at that stage it was as you say basically in or out but the reason so many more voted for Brexit than was expected was because of immigration.

If a soft Brexit means public concerns over controlling our borders are ignored then these feelings will not just disappear and this issue will continue to cause massive problems and public disharmony. So actually they will not have fulfilled their end. There were over a million votes in it and if people feel cheated it could be a lot more votes for far-right parties next time.

I don't think people are as fickle as you think. What alternative is there to the Tories, Corben, he will ruin this country and people would rather vote for Shrek, so there is no real choice.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Aren't Greeks humans with rights?

Who has abandoned ship? Johnson is in the Foreign office, Davis is Minister for Brexit. Aren't they still there?
Gove wasn't given a job but he was a backstabber so you can understand May not wanting him sitting behind her.

Yes they are and that's a separate issue that has nothing to do with the UK infringing on the human rights of Disabled people. Not sure how many times I have to repeat that in all honesty....

I wouldn't really count Boris as being involved with Brexit, a quick google search has revealed that his duties don't tend to coincide with helping with Brexit and a quick news search has turned up that he's pissed off an Israel representative and has met with Trump's people but little to say that he has any involvement with Brexit. It looks like he rode the wave to a comfy position and called it quits on being involved with Brexit.

Davis seems to be the only one who is actively involved with Brexit post referendum.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Yes they are and that's a separate issue that has nothing to do with the UK infringing on the human rights of Disabled people. Not sure how many times I have to repeat that in all honesty....

I wouldn't really count Boris as being involved with Brexit, a quick google search has revealed that his duties don't tend to coincide with helping with Brexit and a quick news search has turned up that he's pissed off an Israel representative and has met with Trump's people but little to say that he has any involvement with Brexit. It looks like he rode the wave to a comfy position and called it quits on being involved with Brexit.

Davis seems to be the only one who is actively involved with Brexit post referendum.

I don't see asking who investigates the EU when the EU are investigating the UK as a separate issue and you can repeat yourself as often as you want to, to keep saying something doesn't necessarily make you right in your view.

Remember it's investigating not convicted of any crime.

The plight of Greece important in any EU conversation, particularly to those with a conscience.

I would have thought the foreign office a fairly important department in relation to Brexit.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

There was no hard/soft option at that stage it was as you say basically in or out but the reason so many more voted for Brexit than was expected was because of immigration.

If a soft Brexit means public concerns over controlling our borders are ignored then these feelings will not just disappear and this issue will continue to cause massive problems and public disharmony. So actually they will not have fulfilled their end. There were over a million votes in it and if people feel cheated it could be a lot more votes for far-right parties next time.

I don't think people are as fickle as you think. What alternative is there to the Tories, Corben, he will ruin this country and people would rather vote for Shrek, so there is no real choice.

Dissatisfaction is nothing new for the government to deal with, if a soft brexit benefits us more than a hard one then they'll cast aside the wants of the Leave side and accept the deal.

Those people might complain but they'll forget about it by the next election, like I said before, a lot of voters have short memories. Some other issue will dominate the next elections and people will have moved on.

I doubt any far right parties will gain any ground, UKIP will flounder now it's core purpose is complete and Farage is gone and things will remain a two horse race between the Tories and Labour.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Dissatisfaction is nothing new for the government to deal with, if a soft brexit benefits us more than a hard one then they'll cast aside the wants of the Leave side and accept the deal.

Those people might complain but they'll forget about it by the next election, like I said before, a lot of voters have short memories. Some other issue will dominate the next elections and people will have moved on.

I doubt any far right parties will gain any ground, UKIP will flounder now it's core purpose is complete and Farage is gone and things will remain a two horse race between the Tories and Labour.

I think you are wrong about the length of voters memories. I made up my mind in how I'd vote the day Maastricht was forced upon us.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Dissatisfaction is nothing new for the government to deal with, if a soft brexit benefits us more than a hard one then they'll cast aside the wants of the Leave side and accept the deal.

Those people might complain but they'll forget about it by the next election, like I said before, a lot of voters have short memories. Some other issue will dominate the next elections and people will have moved on.

I doubt any far right parties will gain any ground, UKIP will flounder now it's core purpose is complete and Farage is gone and things will remain a two horse race between the Tories and Labour.

I think that is more wishful thinking than anything.

They won't forget about it if we still have millions of migrants flooding Britain and stretching our services to breaking point. More terror attacks will also keeps these issues very fresh in their minds. It's madness to think these concerns will just fizzle-out.

Labour is no choice and if the Tories let people down on this I would not be at all surprised to see far right parties gaining ground. Things have never been this bad before and people have had enough - to underestimate the strength of feeling on this is foolhardy.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by jaxie

I don't see asking who investigates the EU when the EU are investigating the UK as a separate issue and you can repeat yourself as often as you want to, to keep saying something doesn't necessarily make you right in your view.

Remember it's investigating not convicted of any crime.

I would have thought the foreign office a fairly important department in relation to Brexit.

It's a question that doesn't change the facts, it just shifts the focus from an investigation that paints the UK in a bad but truthful light to gloss over an unpleasant story.

Boris doesn't seem to have much to do with Brexit beyond the occasional comment on it judging from the news or his Government profile. I'd suppose foreign matters stemming from Brexit are dealt with by Davis or someone in that department while Boris' deal with general Foreign issues.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

I think that is more wishful thinking than anything.

They won't forget about it if we still have millions of migrants flooding Britain and stretching our services to breaking point. More terror attacks will also keeps these issues very fresh in their minds. It's madness to think these concerns will just fizzle-out.

Labour is no choice and if the Tories let people down on this I would not be at all surprised to see far right parties gaining ground. Things have never been this bad before and people have had enough - to underestimate the strength of feeling on this is foolhardy.

Someone else will just play the immigration card at the next election to fool people too ignorant to look at the facts to vote for them. Why would the politicians want to deal with immigration when it's a free buzzword to scare people into voting for them?

Immigrants aren't pushing us to our limits, they are just an easy scapegoat. If you want to know why things like the NHS are in a precarious position then look no further than the Government that wants to privatise it all. It's easy to turn immigrants into scapegoats when people look for reasons to hate them and won't question it.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Someone else will just play the immigration card at the next election to fool people too ignorant to look at the facts to vote for them. Why would the politicians want to deal with immigration when it's a free buzzword to scare people into voting for them?

Immigrants aren't pushing us to our limits, they are just an easy scapegoat. If you want to know why things like the NHS are in a precarious position then look no further than the Government that wants to privatise it all. It's easy to turn immigrants into scapegoats when people look for reasons to hate them and won't question it.

Ignorance is ignoring the obvious and just attempting to dismiss those that have a different point of view. Time will tell.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

You sound very confident the court ruling will go in favour of the MP's getting their vote.

If this happens it will still undermine faith in British politics and the extent that sore losers will go to to get their own way and ignore the majority vote. Who knows what may happen in the future and such behaviour could turn full circle and bite them in the bum. Karma and all that!

I am, I don't believe in sovereign prerogative for parliament.
How will it undermine politics? Politicians make the laws... They shouldn't be seen to be flouting them that's tantamount to advocating anarchy, if rules are only made to be broken.
The sway of the vote is not the issue, it's the terms and who has a voice.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Well this was a quote from Professor Keith Willet from the top of the article 2 who apparently an NHS acute care specialist director. No mention of Sarah Wollaston from him.

"Professor Keith Willett, medical director for acute care at NHS England, said he did not think the service was at the level of a humanitarian crisis, but admitted demand was at its highest level ever and staff were under "a level of pressure we haven't seen before"."

It's winter, we have a large aging population. It's not unreasonable to assume there will be greater pressures is it?

Another quote that has nothing to do with Sarah Wollaston.

"The NHS has disputed claims from the Red Cross that there is a "humanitarian crisis" in its hospitals in England.
One of NHS England's specialist directors said he thought the service was not "at that point" of crisis, but admitted demand was higher than ever.
The Red Cross helps some hospitals with patient transport and provides care for patients who have returned home."

I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that the NHS needs more cash, it always does. But you seen to claim it was making a profit until this year in one breath, then claim it's under such strain it's a humanitarian crisis. I don't think the 'news' is really backing up the claims. I am not sure why you think the chief executive of the red cross knows more than the other people quoted.

I don't know why you feel one director overides those working within the NHS everyday who tell there is a crisis. It was in profit and no it isn't , what's so hard to understand about this? The profit generation branches have been privatised, leaving necessary but costly services. This is not 'news' it's happened you can see for yourself the profit and loss of the NHS over recent years.

Let's look at what Keith Willet actually said..

Prof Willett said that "on the international scale of a humanitarian crisis, I do not think the NHS is at that point".

He continued: "Clearly, demand is at the highest level ever.

"But also our planning is probably more comprehensive than it has ever been.

"In many ways this is a level of pressure we have not seen before and the workload that the NHS is being asked to shoulder in terms of medical treatment and personal care is very high.

"There are several reasons for that. This is the winter and many more people have breathing and heart problems, but we know it is also very difficult at the moment and social care and community services are not able to react fast enough to free up beds to keep up the flow through hospitals."

It may not be a crisis on an international scale.... but on a national one it is.

http://www.itv.com/news/story/2017-0...-crisis-claim/

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jaxie

I don't think the articles you have posted really explain themselves or the figures quoted or where they come from very well. I should also point out they are two and three years old so I'm not sure how they apply to this year.

As far as I am aware 98% of NHS funding comes from the state through taxes and national insurance. If it needs government funding I'm not sure how or where it can be seen as making a profit and making a profit on what? If it is making a profit, then surely to be a profit, that profit would be greater than the funding to be seen as a profit. Under that premise the NHS wouldn't have needed any state funding for the last however many years. Unless when they say loss they mean that they have spent more than they were given. It's not specially clear where the profit and loss come from or goes to and how it relates to the budget given. There must be tons of departments and branches in the NHS. The article seems to relate to hospital trusts only and is about overspending of budgets rather than finishing the year (2 years ago) within the budget given.

Every year new medicines and treatments are developed, items, drugs, treatments, procedures get more expensive to do. The NHS needs large funding and this is not something that will ever change. It seems to me that the problem is finding the money and what Paul to rob to pay Peter.

How can I explain the drop in profit if I only post figures from this year?...

If you believe that 98% of NHS costs are met by the taxpayer then there's no point continuing a discussion with you, I have no idea how you think in any universe that was possible.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

How can I explain the drop in profit if I only post figures from this year?...

If you believe that 98% of NHS costs are met by the taxpayer then there's no point continuing a discussion with you, I have no idea how you think in any universe that was possible.

NHS web page told me so, (though I already knew that) who do you think funds it dipsy lala and poe?

http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/.../overview.aspx

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nati...rvice_(England)

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/project...how-nhs-funded

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jaxie

NHS web page told me so, (though I already knew that) who do you think funds it dipsy lala and poe?

http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/.../overview.aspx

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nati...rvice_(England)

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/project...how-nhs-funded

What is kingsfund... how do they know it is 98% tax funded?

The govt funds it, they have other income besides tax don't they? How could anyone say that it was taxpayer money specifically? :/

The trouble with getting your stats from 'think tanks' is who are they 'thinking' about?...
I wonder what dipsy, la-la and po would think to these kingsfund suggestions?...

The Kings Fund’s ideas include:

· Over 60s (except those on pension credit) to pay for prescriptions - £1.5bn

· Increase the qualifying age to 65 - £value unknown

· Raise the prescription charge to £10 - £100m.

· Or remove all prescription exemptions and charge £2.45 to all - £2bn

· Charge to visit the GP from £5-25 - £3 billion

· Charging to attend A&E £10 - £220 million

· Charge £10 for outpatient attendance - £800m

· Charge £10 for each day in hospital - £500m

· Charge £50 for each hospital 'procedure' - £900m

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs...ly-independent

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

What is kingsfund... how do they know it is 98% tax funded?

The govt funds it, they have other income besides tax don't they? How could anyone say that it was taxpayer money specifically? :/

The trouble with getting your stats from 'think tanks' is who are they 'thinking' about?...
I wonder what dipsy, la-la and po would think to these kingsfund suggestions?...

The Kings Fund’s ideas include:

· Over 60s (except those on pension credit) to pay for prescriptions - £1.5bn

· Increase the qualifying age to 65 - £value unknown

· Raise the prescription charge to £10 - £100m.

· Or remove all prescription exemptions and charge £2.45 to all - £2bn

· Charge to visit the GP from £5-25 - £3 billion

· Charging to attend A&E £10 - £220 million

· Charge £10 for outpatient attendance - £800m

· Charge £10 for each day in hospital - £500m

· Charge £50 for each hospital 'procedure' - £900m

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs...ly-independent

If you read the NHS and wikipedia links both tell you the NHS is mostly funded through taxation. I don't know what else you want me to say, if you don't believe it I can't help that.

The Kings Fund is an independent health care dedicated charity. They provide NHS leadership development and shape health and social care policies. They are also involved in analysis and statistics related to the health service.

Dipsy, Lala and Poe would think Kingsfund had probably used analysis and statistics to put forward the 'ideas' you'd like to disparage and probably know their stuff and have done their research on ways the NHS might save money. Whether it would ever be implemented or not is besides the point though there is some merit for paying for GP visits like you do the dentist or for A&E. I wouldn't mind paying a small fee for those things to help the NHS budget personally. And a lot of people time waste at A&E and indeed at the GP, I bet a lot of that would be cut if you had to pay ten pounds for the privilege.

[Kizzy]

How does wiki know it is funded solely via taxation as opposed to any other funding stream?

It's a think tank.
And what if you don't have £10?

[arista]

Kizzy your Labour Leader is Live on SkyNewsHD now


FREE to watch ONLINE


Also the Film you like
http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/foru...36#post9139436

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

How does wiki know it is funded solely via taxation as opposed to any other funding stream?

It's a think tank.
And what if you don't have £10?

Because that is how the NHS is funded. How does the NHS know (the other link). Because that's the truth. How do you know it isn't? You refute everything I tell you but don't suggest how you think it is funded. I'm afraid I think you are arguing now just for the sake of disagreeing with me and that's kind of pointless.

Saying it's a think tank over and over is wasting your time and mine, and doesn't really make it so. It's a non profit charity.

As I said I can't see the suggestions being put into action, however, a lot of people would be willing to pay a bit more for the NHS, or £10 to visit the Dr or A&E, it's a vital service to most people. If you don't have £10 you are possibly on benefits and like the prescriptions you probably wouldn't have to pay, just like children and the elderly. All they are suggesting is a possible way to boost NHS funds in the part you pasted.

You can't moan about the NHS being in crisis and then complain about suggestions for raising additional funds for it. The money has to come from somewhere so it's raising tax or charging a small fee for some services. It really doesn't grow on trees.

I find it strange that you can take their suggestions so seriously and yet deny their statistics about NHS funding. I think you are cherry picking.

[DemolitionRed]

You guys can get all the information you need here: http://www.nhsforsale.info/

The NHS is being starved by its government and anyone who works within the health sector knows this.

Oh and In a blog on the King’s Fund website, Appleby and Roberts also note that Hunt's claim that the government are giving the NHS in England an extra £3.8 billion this year is untrue with the true figure being just £1.8 billion. https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/20...e-historically

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

You guys can get all the information you need here: http://www.nhsforsale.info/

The NHS is being starved by its government and anyone who works within the health sector knows this.

Oh and In a blog on the King’s Fund website, Appleby and Roberts also note that Hunt's claim that the government are giving the NHS in England an extra £3.8 billion this year is untrue with the true figure being just £1.8 billion. https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/20...e-historically

Thanks for the additional links Red. Also nice to see someone is actually reading what I've linked!

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Because that is how the NHS is funded. How does the NHS know (the other link). Because that's the truth. How do you know it isn't? You refute everything I tell you but don't suggest how you think it is funded. I'm afraid I think you are arguing now just for the sake of disagreeing with me and that's kind of pointless.

Saying it's a think tank over and over is wasting your time and mine, and doesn't really make it so. It's a non profit charity.

As I said I can't see the suggestions being put into action, however, a lot of people would be willing to pay a bit more for the NHS, or £10 to visit the Dr or A&E, it's a vital service to most people. If you don't have £10 you are possibly on benefits and like the prescriptions you probably wouldn't have to pay, just like children and the elderly. All they are suggesting is a possible way to boost NHS funds in the part you pasted.

You can't moan about the NHS being in crisis and then complain about suggestions for raising additional funds for it. The money has to come from somewhere so it's raising tax or charging a small fee for some services. It really doesn't grow on trees.

I find it strange that you can take their suggestions so seriously and yet deny their statistics about NHS funding. I think you are cherry picking.

You are not understanding what I am saying to you, I agree the NHS is centrally government funded what I am saying is of all those streams of income our govt has how can it be assured that it is tax money specifically that is used to fund the NHS?
It is a nonsense, when this govt took over the NHS was not in crisis as seen if you care to look (if the links I provided are not adequate) anywhere you will see that this is the case... and now it is in the red.
This would then mean by your logic that less people are working and paying tax to fund the NHS than there was even though we are regularly told that there are more people in work than ever before, certainly since this govt took over, so where is the funding?...where is all the lovely tax money that the NHS so desperately need?
I'm not cherry picking it's just common sense, if more people are working and something is directly funded via tax then they should have more than enough surely?....