View Single Post
Old 19-04-2005, 19:29   #28
punky
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Age: 45
Posts: 14,750
punky has a golden aurapunky has a golden aura
punky has a golden aurapunky has a golden aurapunky has a golden aurapunky has a golden aurapunky has a golden aurapunky has a golden aurapunky has a golden aurapunky has a golden aurapunky has a golden aurapunky has a golden aurapunky has a golden aurapunky has a golden aurapunky has a golden aurapunky has a golden aurapunky has a golden aura
Re: Vote 2005 week 3, with another new poll

Considering Labour are supposed to be above all this supposed "fear-electioneering" they are doing a very good impression.

Seen the latest one about the NHS? With Prunella Scales in it? Its the usual class-war rubbish you'd expect from Labour. Anyway, the final screen said "Keep the NHS free", which is blantantly misleading. Its inferring that, it won't be under Tories. That's complete rubbish. The NHS would be as free under the Tories as Labour. The Tories want to fill up as many empty private beds as possible which means queues for the NHS get shorter, and people get seen quicker. The actually price would be the same, i.e. Free. Well, under Labour, the NHS would probably be more expensive, with ever-more bloated NI contributions.

I can't afford to go private, even with half-subsided fees from the NHS (money I paid in for the NHS to treat me), but I am no fool. If the people that can afford to go private, do, then the people at the back of the NHS queue, like me.. Are we going to stay at the back? No, we are going to move forward quicker. Rather than have 1 very long NHS queue, and 1 virtually non-existant private one, you'll get 1 much shorter queue for the NHS and 1 longer for private but much more equal

Aside from that, don't Labour have an obligation to treat as many people as possible, rather than just let people die waiting that could be saved if they get the treatment quicker private?
punky is offline