Eames Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 I've noticed that thrown around a lot on here. "You've missed the point" with no effort to explain why? Pray enlihnten me. Which point did I miss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 The point being, the NHS is being sold off to tory donors, trying to dress it up as something else "the government have commissioned a private company to take over the running of part of the NHS" when we all know what is going on, is much the same as when the tories try to claim that their bedroom tax "isn't a tax". We know full well what they are doing, pretending it is something different because they can't admit to what they really are doing. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 So what parts have been sold off, apart from the hospitals under labour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) The point being, the NHS is being sold off to tory donors, trying to dress it up as something else "the government have commissioned a private company to take over the running of part of the NHS" when we all know what is going on, is much the same as when the tories try to claim that their bedroom tax "isn't a tax". We know full well what they are doing, pretending it is something different because they can't admit to what they really are doing. Which is lovely and all...except the spin you attribute to the Tories is misplaced. They've been quite honest about what they are doing. Labour have simply given it a misleading strap line. The "bedroom tax" isn't a tax. It just isn't. You are calling an elephant a rhinoceros. You are simply just not right. If I give £10 to Oxfam one week and £5 the next I haven't levied a 50% tax on Oxfam have I? I've reduced the benefit I give them. Asking private companies to do something more efficiently within the NHS isn't intrinsically bad either if it delivers the same service and saves money. That's a different thing to selling the NHS off to a private interest to run for a profit al a the railways or royal mail. I'm not saying either point of view is right or wrong. Simply that of you intend to debate a subject you should understand it before forming an opinion. Simply parroting party policital spin does not a coherant argument make. Edited March 5, 2014 by Eames Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Sell off, outsource, privatisation. Call it what you will. It's private companies, often linked to the Tory party, making a profit from people being sick. It doesn't drive up standards or efficiency but some people get rich, so it's being done. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Sell off, outsource, privatisation. Call it what you will. It's private companies, often linked to the Tory party, making a profit from people being sick. It doesn't drive up standards or efficiency but some people get rich, so it's being done. Evidence? Because I would argue that the private sector is several times more efficient than the public. Presumably you also object to GlaxoSmithKline? Or Elastoplast? Or the bloke that makes sick bags because they too make a profit out of sick people.Or is it profit in general you object to? If the NHS remain free at the point of use but more efficient in its treatment of people where is the problem? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Sell off, outsource, privatisation. Call it what you will. It's private companies, often linked to the Tory party, making a profit from people being sick. It doesn't drive up standards or efficiency but some people get rich, so it's being done. Evidence? Because I would argue that the private sector is several times more efficient than the public. Presumably you also object to GlaxoSmithKline? Or Elastoplast? Or the bloke that makes sick bags because they too make a profit out of sick people.Or is it profit in general you object to? If the NHS remain free at the point of use but more efficient in its treatment of people where is the problem?In the video I posted the GP, Doctor Gill said efficiency levels have been dropping with privatisation. It doesn't do what it's supposed to do. As for the pharmaceutical industry, well there is a stark advert of the dangers of leaving medicine to the profiteers of the markets. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mockingbird_franklin Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 How Wonderful the DWP are under that nice IDS http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/blind-man-repeatedly-benefits-stopped-3208001 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 The failed badger cull that cost millions...that's the Tories cleaning up the mess. Apparently around 50,000 badgers are killed every year by cars. The tory badger cull managed to wipe out 1,771 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Sell off, outsource, privatisation. Call it what you will. It's private companies, often linked to the Tory party, making a profit from people being sick. It doesn't drive up standards or efficiency but some people get rich, so it's being done.Evidence? Because I would argue that the private sector is several times more efficient than the public. Presumably you also object to GlaxoSmithKline? Or Elastoplast? Or the bloke that makes sick bags because they too make a profit out of sick people.Or is it profit in general you object to? If the NHS remain free at the point of use but more efficient in its treatment of people where is the problem?In the video I posted the GP, Doctor Gill said efficiency levels have been dropping with privatisation. It doesn't do what it's supposed to do. As for the pharmaceutical industry, well there is a stark advert of the dangers of leaving medicine to the profiteers of the markets. So to repeat colhints point...what has actually been privatised apart from Labour's PFI build hospitals? Or is that to what Dr Gill is referring? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Sell off, outsource, privatisation. Call it what you will. It's private companies, often linked to the Tory party, making a profit from people being sick. It doesn't drive up standards or efficiency but some people get rich, so it's being done.Evidence? Because I would argue that the private sector is several times more efficient than the public. Presumably you also object to GlaxoSmithKline? Or Elastoplast? Or the bloke that makes sick bags because they too make a profit out of sick people.Or is it profit in general you object to? If the NHS remain free at the point of use but more efficient in its treatment of people where is the problem?In the video I posted the GP, Doctor Gill said efficiency levels have been dropping with privatisation. It doesn't do what it's supposed to do. As for the pharmaceutical industry, well there is a stark advert of the dangers of leaving medicine to the profiteers of the markets. So to repeat colhints point...what has actually been privatised apart from Labour's PFI build hospitals? Or is that to what Dr Gill is referring?George Osborne progressed 61 PFI schemes worth a total of £6.9bn in his first year as Chancellor. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 It is true really. I think the Tories get kicked out on Scandal or sleaze, Labour have always been kicked out for buggering up the economy, well since 1960 anyway, before my time any further back again massive myth - so interesting to see the right wing perpetuating this so called justification for ideologically led cuts and attacks on certain members of society For the sake of argument lets look at % of GDP being spent and go from there for a reasonable conversation and less of this stupid "name calling" that some are now resorting to http://www.theguardian.com/politics/interactive/2010/oct/15/comprehensive-spending-review-2010-public-spending 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Labour are the mess. Who took us cap in hand to the IMF? Who screwed the pooch so badly we ended up with a 3 day week? Mountains of rubbish in the street? Unions running the country? Yep, Labour scum. Oh dear it seems that Awol is having a tantrum here. Re the IMF explain how you actually justify your argument for the myth based on this IMF thing again? Maybe you can explain how your argument stands up against various evidence that litters the internet to dispel your somewhat blinkered view, especially when you look at social impact of policies and outside factors. And really calling people scum? quite childish 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 The big joke is that the yellow team would probably find a happy balance between the two but no one gives enough of a shit to elect them because the arent nasty enough to and about the others to get elected. Actually the Lib Dems are notorious for putting out nastier, more deliberately misleading election material than either Labour or Tories. Have been for years. Yes, I know it doesn't go with their image. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 The big joke is that the yellow team would probably find a happy balance between the two but no one gives enough of a shit to elect them because the arent nasty enough to and about the others to get elected. Actually the Lib Dems are notorious for putting out nastier, more deliberately misleading election material than either Labour or Tories. Have been for years. Yes, I know it doesn't go with their image. Like promising to scrap tuition fees to win the students' vote when they knew they couldn't really do it, for example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 So what parts have been sold off, apart from the hospitals under labour. I appreciate you and many of the Tories on VT don't answer any questions raised against the party but in the spirit of debate I wonder how you reconcile some of the following - (and let's play sensible here and not resort to semantics etc) So how does a Tory voter explain the massive gains that many of the people who donate to it now receive as part of "outsourced" activities? As Burnham said recently "Speaking as negotiations continue for a free trade deal bridging the Atlantic, Mr Burnham said such an agreement could pose fundamental problems. “US health-care companies will be able to say to an NHS clinical commissioning group: ‘We have a legal right to bid for that service.’ Dragging the NHS down that path will destroy it, it will devour what’s precious about the NHS." - again how does that fit in with this "protection" of the NHS What about the following "Privatisation of the health service, he said, had been the “core purpose” of the Health and Social Care Act. The Act freed up NHS organisations to make 49 per cent of their income from paying patients – a huge increase on the 2 per cent permitted previously." - surely that is something that can clearly be argued against if it is wrong? The list goes on and on and this Gvmt - supported by the party led by Clegg - have implemented some of the most ill thought out, vindictive, self service policies that I have ever seen - and I have suffered under Thatcher so that is saying something. I look forward to your reply 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Sell off, outsource, privatisation. Call it what you will. It's private companies, often linked to the Tory party, making a profit from people being sick. It doesn't drive up standards or efficiency but some people get rich, so it's being done. Evidence? Because I would argue that the private sector is several times more efficient than the public. Presumably you also object to GlaxoSmithKline? Or Elastoplast? Or the bloke that makes sick bags because they too make a profit out of sick people.Or is it profit in general you object to? If the NHS remain free at the point of use but more efficient in its treatment of people where is the problem? :-) - how about a little word called accountability. I suppose all the banking / finance sector were more efficient than any state run sector? I suppose many companies who try and erode workers rights and evade paying a living wage are more efficient? Elastoplast are not a company as far as I know, and some of the pharmaceutical companies are very very good at research and development but the rest of society have to pay a massive price for that, for what is a basic part of a civilised society in the support and welfare of the health at least of each and everyone of us. Unless of course you subscribe that wealth = health? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Is that the Andy Burnham who is Shadow Health Minister the and Labour front bencher? because he of course has no interest on dressing up what is happening for his own political aims has he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 I too will look forward to yours, seeing as you quoted me. I can't comment on the other bit as I don't know what free trade deal he is referring to. Is it just to do with the NHS or a general free trade deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Is that the Andy Burnham who is Shadow Health Minister the and Labour front bencher? because he of course has no interest on dressing up what is happening for his own political aims has he? Yes it is - well done. So I see that you wont even argue against the comments other than identifying who said it - something I had done anyway. Me thinks you may be struggling a bit for a reasonable answer to the points raised? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts