Vote 2005 week 3, with another new poll

[punky]

Originally Posted by Damien

Doesnt that create a two teir system?

Yeah and that's the point. Two produce two smallish queues, rather than just one big one.

Although most people cannot afford to go private full stop. This will not bring people who do not go private now to go private. It will simply make those who go private now pay less by taking the money out of the NHS.

Getting thousands of pounds towards private treatment will make treatment affordable to much more. What doesn't make it affordable is paying twice, in NI contributions and in full private fees. You make a fair point in that richer people can theoretically get off the private treatment they'd get anyway. Well, why not? They paid for it. An improvement on the idea would be to means-test the contribution, which I think the Tories did mention at one point but appear to have dropped. Means testing is fair enough (for me anyway)

The idea that loads upon loads of people will go private after this cannot be backed up. Its will come down to £1 Billion pounds taken from the NHS to help pay for peoples private operations without a big dent in waiting times

That's what Labour is worried about, that the NHS can't afford to foot a massive immeadiate bill, that has to be settled in weeks, rather than years for thousands to suddenly jump out of the middle of one queue onto another, exposing how woefully under funded its legacy is. They mask it with this class war stuff. Tories say they can fund it through greater efficiency in the NHS, which few people disagree with.

A lot of people do disagree with the the Tories plans for the NHS and even more question the magical saving they claim to make by cutting 'waste' (ie. more efficient).

What I am saying is this: For Mr Joe who cannot (like most people) afford private care, even with this NHS sceme (which will require more staff to run and implemet the system) all is happening is that £1 billion is leaving the health system. Now you say its fair that people who go private get some of there money back. I agree. However i do not think the effect on waiting times will justify the 1 Billion taken out of the NHS. Thats a lot of money, when most people wont want to pay the extra money to go private. Your suggestion that it will be two queues is (IMO) wrong. Those who go private will have the OP right away, but not many wwill go private meaning that the NHS queue will only be marginally smaller at the expense of 1 billions pounds. Finally what effect will that money being removed from the NHS have? You cannot save £1 Billion pounds though waste. Something will have to go

Originally Posted by Damien

Doesnt that create a two teir system? Theres the option to be treated free, or pay extra and get nice private treatment. Its sounds ok because you pay your taxs and then get treated away from the NHS. Although most people cannot afford to go private full stop. This will not bring people who do not go private now to go private. It will simply make those who go private now pay less by taking the money out of the NHS.

Private treatment is very expensive and even with this voucher system it is massively expensive.The idea that loads upon loads of people will go private after this cannot be backed up. Its will come down to £1 Billion pounds taken from the NHS to help pay for peoples private operations without a big dent in waiting times

Only in Britain could the idea of someone getting something better be held up as an intrinsically bad thing.

What, pray tell, is wrong with a two-tier system? If the end result is that everybody's waiting time is reduced, what harm has been done?

Sorry, but whether you realise this or not, the root of your argument is good old fashioned envy politics, pure and simple.

Tell you what, rather than do the Labour spin, let's look at it another way. Let's consider that those with the financial means to go private are doing a public service by spending their own money doing so, even though they are quite entitled to completely free treatment on the NHS - which they continue to pay for through their taxes even if they don't use it - and it is therefore completely reasonable for the State to do a little to help out.

When you dig beneath the surface, so much of Labour's attitude is 'if I can't have it, neither should you.' But then that's socialism for you. It makes me sick.

What, pray tell, is wrong with a two-tier system? If the end result is that everybody's waiting time is reduced, what harm has been done?

Because as I have said I do not believe many will go private. So waiting times will not go down as drastically as someone would think. I have no problem with people going private, but most of the people who can afford this under the tory system will be the same people who go private now. So it wont really cut waiting times and it will take a billion pounds of the NHS money. This is a good idea if the torys add a billion pounds to make up for it, then fine.

[NitroNutter]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Only in Britain could the idea of someone getting something better be held up as an intrinsically bad thing.

What, pray tell, is wrong with a two-tier system? If the end result is that everybody's waiting time is reduced, what harm has been done?

Sorry, but whether you realise this or not, the root of your argument is good old fashioned envy politics, pure and simple.

Tell you what, rather than do the Labour spin, let's look at it another way. Let's consider that those with the financial means to go private are doing a public service by spending their own money doing so, even though they are quite entitled to completely free treatment on the NHS - which they continue to pay for through their taxes even if they don't use it - and it is therefore completely reasonable for the State to do a little to help out.

When you dig beneath the surface, so much of Labour's attitude is 'if I can't have it, neither should you.' But then that's socialism for you. It makes me sick.

well show us the facts please, the proof that the NHS will not suffer as Tory will should they get in power with this policy be taking from the NHS half the current trunover of private health care. If you can prove beyond doubt with full facts and figures that the NHS will not become a hugely diluted service with this policy as a cause then great.
IMO this policy is treading into very dangerous territory and could lead to the beginning of the end of the NHS as we know it.

[Charlie_Bubble]

I went private a couple of years back and wouldn't hesitate to do it again in the future. I have BUPA through work and had a big lump on the front of my shin. The doctor (NHS GP) asked me if I had private healthcare when he saw me. He told me that I would have to wait over 6 months to even see a consultant about it. As it was, I had it removed within about 4 weeks privately.

[etccarmageddon]

Originally Posted by Damien

...Its will come down to £1 Billion pounds taken from the NHS to help pay for peoples private operations without a big dent in waiting times

you might not be aware of this but where the waiting list exceeds targets, the current policy (a Labour one) is to send the person to have the operation done privately and PAID FOR BY THE NHS! so the conservative idea might (ironically) save the NHS money - firstly by giving an incentive for loads more people to go private and secondly by reducing the waiting lists thus stopping the NHS funding 100% of treatment.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0%2C...0418%2C00.html


and here's a story to amuse you...

my friend is quite ill and trys to book to see his consultant because he needs to have an operation done but he's told he needs to wait X number of weeks before he can see the consultant so he pays around £150 of his own money to see the consultant privately.

He sees the consultant who agrees he needs the operation...

"great when can you book me in for it, I would like it done on the NHS as I cant afford to pay for it privately"

consultant says "sorry, I can only book you for a private operation if you want it on the NHS you'll have to make an appointment to see me again but this time an NHS appointment"

obviously my friend is very angry at this point having spent £150 to jump the NHS consultation queue only to find this was pointless and a waste of cash.

So he ends up seeing the consultant again after a few weeks and the operation is agreed - and this is the brilliant bit... he's now outside the waiting list limit so the local NHS trust PAY the FULL cost of his operation to be done PRIVATELY!!! Is this how they keep the waiting lists down?

Anyway, to top everything else... originally he was within the waiting list and had he not been made to wait for the NHS consultation, the operation would have been able to be done on the NHS!!!

[SOSAGES]

having followed a lot of it i think i will actually vote this year and go for the loony Party, they seem capable of running the country as well as anyone else and at this moment in time seem a lot more honest

Originally Posted by Charlie_Bubble

I could point out 2 houses in an area north of Heathrow that have more than a dozen people who should not be living and working in the UK, living in them and working in heathrow hotels. They are people who have come into the country on tourist or short-term student visas from eastern europe and have not gone home. Instead, they have chosen to stay, live here illegally and work, because they can't get in any other way and the money here is just too good to pass up. How do I know this, because I used to go out with a foreign student who knew someone who lived in one of them. She also had a friend who actively recruited foreign students from colleges in London to work through a temp agency in very well known west end shops. Do you call this controlled immigration? I certainly don't.

If these workers come from a country within the European Union then they are legally working here. Even so the numbers do not constitute cause for concern. The immigration service staff will get quite annoyed everytime Mr. Howard repeats his claims. The situation is not serious at all.

It is ridiculous to keep saying that immigration is not controlled, only yesterday I heard of a Zimbabean asylum seeker quite cruely, unjustly being deported, as many others have been and still are.

[etccarmageddon]

Originally Posted by SOSAGES

having followed a lot of it i think i will actually vote this year and go for the loony Party, they seem capable of running the country as well as anyone else and at this moment in time seem a lot more honest

please be more specific - which loony party will you be voting for? Lib Dem, Labour or Conservative?

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by Chris T

When you dig beneath the surface, so much of Labour's attitude is 'if I can't have it, neither should you.' But then that's socialism for you. It makes me sick.

Maybe it's Labour's attitude but it's not the socialist ideal of fair access to limited resources. It's the conservative attitude of greed, the 'I deserve more than the next person' attitude, that makes me sick.

Originally Posted by Gogogo

If these workers come from a country within the European Union then they are legally working here. Even so the numbers do not constitute cause for concern. The immigration service staff will get quite annoyed everytime Mr. Howard repeats his claims. The situation is not serious at all.

It is ridiculous to keep saying that immigration is not controlled, only yesterday I heard of a Zimbabean asylum seeker quite cruely, unjustly being deported, as many others have been and still are.

The UN has said that the Torys plans will actually increase asylum seekers and they may withhold there support if the torys will the election.

The UNHCR has disclosed that it met the Conservative front bench twice in recent months to express its unease about the party's plans. The UN body said yesterday it would consider withholding its cooperation were a Tory government to try to impose a quota of refugees drawn from a UNHCR-supplied list. The body is opposed to the Tories' proposal to withdraw from the Geneva convention. "The 1951 convention is one of the main human rights conventions in the world and to withdraw from it would have a detrimental effect on the commitment of other European countries," a spokesman said.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/elect...463810,00.html

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

well show us the facts please, the proof that the NHS will not suffer as Tory will should they get in power with this policy be taking from the NHS half the current trunover of private health care. If you can prove beyond doubt with full facts and figures that the NHS will not become a hugely diluted service with this policy as a cause then great.
IMO this policy is treading into very dangerous territory and could lead to the beginning of the end of the NHS as we know it.

Sorry, burden of proof doesn't work like that. You have made the allegation that the NHS will become a hugely diluted service as a result of Tory policy. You prove it.
__________________

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

you might not be aware of this but where the waiting list exceeds targets, the current policy (a Labour one) is to send the person to have the operation done privately and PAID FOR BY THE NHS! so the conservative idea might (ironically) save the NHS money - firstly by giving an incentive for loads more people to go private and secondly by reducing the waiting lists thus stopping the NHS funding 100% of treatment.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0%2C...0418%2C00.html

A very good point. Labour is already paying 100% of the cost of some operations done in private hospitals. The Tories propose to fund only a proportion of the cost of treatment in private hospitals.

[etccarmageddon]

The Labour policy is to throw money at the problem to keep waiting lists within policital targets. The problem with this is that it simply takes staff away from the NHS as the people doing the private ops are the same people who work in the NHS! And you could view it as a political way of faking an improvement in the NHS.

The Conservative policy is to get you to throw half of you own money at it and half of the tax payers. The problem is though that no-one knows if this will encourage more 'well off' people to go private or will just make it cheaper for people who would have gone private anyway.

[NitroNutter]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Sorry, burden of proof doesn't work like that. You have made the allegation that the NHS will become a hugely diluted service as a result of Tory policy. You prove it.
__________________

I have no need to prove anything. I did not make any such allegations you claim. Something you fail to be able to differentiate between is an opinion and an allegation.

Politicians from all parties prove, with such regularity that they cannot deliver their promises.
Every manifesto is based on a presumed economy, which in turn means all policies within the manifestos are to say the least presumtious, as economy affects all policies.
From what Iv seen in this campaign so far it has to be the most childish and bitchy campaing in UK history.

Still while you can fool most of the people most of the time political reform will never take place and we will continue to suffer as a race from the continual political shams and scams imposed on us by this current status quo under the guise of it being a free society in a democracy, which is so far from the truth it begs belief.