Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Just 19% think the Chancellor’s changes will make them better off – politicalbetting.com

145679

Comments

  • Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    Can we do “this” while not becoming progressively poorer than comparable countries? If there’s no limit on healthcare spending, it could take over the whole economy.
    The UK is surrounded by richer countries who spend more on healthcare.
    Not via a system like the NHS though, so there isn’t the same ratchet effect.
    That’s a different argument.
  • HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    The definition of a conservative is someone who loves their country but hates most of the people in it.
    No conservative would deny healthcare to the old, libertarians might but they are not conservatives
    The Libertarians have taken control of the Conservative Party.

    They might not be your flavour of Conservative, but that is the nature of your party under Truss.
    Question is- how did this happen? The many purges since 2016 are part of the story, but not all of it.

    Suppose Truss had been upfront and explicit about her intentions during the leadership campaign. Would she have won anyway? I fear that the "Rishi was mean to poor Boris" factor would have got her over the line.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,393
    edited September 2022
    carnforth said:

    The biggest change in the last thirty years is not the fall in owners and rise in renters, though that is significant: it is the related rise in outright-owners and fall in mortgage-carrying-owners. High interest rates will be brutal for a small concentrated part of society - mainly those in their 30s and 40s. Probably not good for fertility rates.

    More than half of homeowners now don’t have a mortgage, a record high.

    You cannot solve a housing crisis when the population of the country is rising so fast. No matter how fast you build homes it won't be enough. In the 70s and 80s the population was almost flat which meant it was easy to build enough homes.
  • I see the Mail has moved on very quickly from worshipping everything Johnson's government was doing.

  • I've found the one constituency of people in the UK who really like the budget.

    The Fail.

    and with that, goodnight.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    The definition of a conservative is someone who loves their country but hates most of the people in it.
    No conservative would deny healthcare to the old, libertarians might but they are not conservatives
    This is not a conservative/liberal/libertarian trifecta

    We are warping society - very badly - and taxing the hard working young - to preserve people who are in their 80s and 90s, and often quite demented, who should be dead. We have found the means of keeping them alive, but not the ways of making their lives meaningful. It is a perversity. End it
    Yes it is.

    No social conservative would ever deny healthcare to the old, no matter how old they may be.

    Most in their 80s and 90s will also have paid into the system through tax and NI throughout their working lives. Encourage the rich to take out private insurance by all means but the elderly less well off still need care.

    In any case Truss and Kwarteng have axed Sunak's health and social care levy today so that is old hat as well as axing tax for rich.

    If they axe NHS spending too to pay for it an pursue the pure ideological libertarianism you suggest, then Tory defeat would turn into a landslide of worse than 1997 proportions
    Believe it or not, I'm not talking about perceived electoral advantage for any particular party, I'm not even talking about the UK really, I am talking about the way we deal with old age and death

    Because we have become irreligious everyone is terrified of dying. This is absurd. Life and death are as they always were. They are the weave of human consciousness which embroiders the universe with a strange crucial gold

    We force old demented people to stay alive because WE are scared of what death means, most of these people need to be gone, and would probably and happily accept that fate, given the right solace by the humans around them

    Get rid of the fear and we will realise we should not build societies around this absurd dread. We are little better than the ancient Egyptians throwing up vast expensive pyramids for terrified pharaohs, except we build pyramids of atheist terror called care homes

    The truly religious, led of course by the Roman Catholic church, are also staunchly anti any form of euthanasia.

    There are some good care homes around, what we want is to support our elderly in their last years not kill them off
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056

    Scott_xP said:

    Markets currently predicting interest rates will go to 5.5% which will be absolutely brutal for people who borrowed initially at 1-2%. Will far exceed any savings from tax cuts.
    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1573417917676687360

    That's getting close to the unaffordable range right? Pity about the old stress test.
    Markets also have a habit of overshooting. It really wouldn't surprise me to see interest rates of 6%+ being required to calm things down...
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,918
    edited September 2022

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    Can we do “this” while not becoming progressively poorer than comparable countries? If there’s no limit on healthcare spending, it could take over the whole economy.
    Of course we can do it, we’ve done it many times before. Let’s keep pushing the boundaries and providing a great, long life for our citizens. Isnt that what it’s all about?
  • HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    The definition of a conservative is someone who loves their country but hates most of the people in it.
    No conservative would deny healthcare to the old, libertarians might but they are not conservatives
    The Libertarians have taken control of the Conservative Party.

    They might not be your flavour of Conservative, but that is the nature of your party under Truss.
    Question is- how did this happen? The many purges since 2016 are part of the story, but not all of it.

    Suppose Truss had been upfront and explicit about her intentions during the leadership campaign. Would she have won anyway? I fear that the "Rishi was mean to poor Boris" factor would have got her over the line.
    To be fair, Minford predicted massive increases in interest rates but we weren’t really listening.
  • MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The UK isn't turning into Japan because Japan invests in infrastructure and housing. You can get a 1 bedroom apartment for about £650pcm in Tokyo (https://resources.realestate.co.jp/rent/what-is-the-average-rent-in-tokyo-2020-ranking-by-ward-and-layout/) compared to £2000 in London (https://www.home.co.uk/for_rent/london/current_rents?location=london). We're turning into a cross between Greece, in terms of lack of opportunities for the young, and Portugal, in terms of rentierism.
  • Oh for those halcyon days when we had the calm, steadying hand of Priti Patel at the heart of government.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    edited September 2022
    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    The biggest change in the last thirty years is not the fall in owners and rise in renters, though that is significant: it is the related rise in outright-owners and fall in mortgage-carrying-owners. High interest rates will be brutal for a small concentrated part of society - mainly those in their 30s and 40s. Probably not good for fertility rates.

    More than half of homeowners now don’t have a mortgage, a record high.

    You cannot solve a housing crisis when the population of the country is rising so fast. No matter how fast you build homes it won't be enough. In the 70s and 80s the population was almost flat which meant it was easy to build enough homes.
    And the only reason it is rising is immigration, further tighten controls there on non EU immigration especially and the problem becomes less of an issue. The UK birthrate is below replacement level, it was higher in the 70s and 80s but immigration was lower
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,732

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    The definition of a conservative is someone who loves their country but hates most of the people in it.
    No conservative would deny healthcare to the old, libertarians might but they are not conservatives
    The Libertarians have taken control of the Conservative Party.

    They might not be your flavour of Conservative, but that is the nature of your party under Truss.
    Question is- how did this happen? The many purges since 2016 are part of the story, but not all of it.

    Suppose Truss had been upfront and explicit about her intentions during the leadership campaign. Would she have won anyway? I fear that the "Rishi was mean to poor Boris" factor would have got her over the line.
    I thought she was admirably honest about her tax cuts being funded by government debt.

    This was exactly what the Tory membership voted for.
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651
    edited September 2022
    The more that Tories sense big trouble approaching in society, the more many of them drool at the idea of mass murder. Overpopulation this, can't sustain that, old c***s who haven't paid in for private pensions get free health treatment - isn't it an abomination, why should those oxygen thieves get something for nothing, we can't all get what we want, etc. etc.

    Overcompensation for self-hatred?

    Unfortunately almost nobody on the left understands this, or is willing to try to, and that's the tragedy. They will probably say "They shall not pass" when it is already FAR too late.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,605
    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The question is stupid and utterly self defeating. It has been answered repeatedly. If you had your way we would have not made progress and settled for some arbitrary so called ‘natural’ limit years ago.
    Still no answers then. And those bygone eras are not comparable to today. That was an age where people were getting healthier and basic nutrition provided a huge boost to people's health and longevity. We're now at the other end of the scale where people's lifestyles are now a burden, especially in older age.

    Until recently there was never a time where a person with dementia would be kept alive and have their life lengthened for an unlimited period of time. That's what we're doing, keeping shells of people alive, for what no one really knows but they exist and cost the state billions that could be better spent on cancer care, stroke rehabilitation and plenty of other healthcare needs.

    We've arbitrarily decided that life quality doesn't matter if the patient is unable to say so and even in some cases where they have said so they are unable to be assisted in dying.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 3,087
    edited September 2022
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    England's Nations League campaign so far:

    ▪️ Zero wins in five matches
    ▪️ One goal in five matches
    ▪️ Relegation confirmed

    Worrying signs from Gareth Southgate's Three Lions.

    😬 https://twitter.com/WilliamHill/status/1573412228002463751/photo/1

    Tonight's result penance from above for football fans in England not showing enough respect and mourning after the recent passing of Her Majesty.

    Rangers fans put them to shame!

    Rangers fans support England as well!
    No, they support Scotland, just are loyal to our monarch and the UK too
    As is often the case you're way out of touch.

    'The three reasons Rangers fans have fallen out of love with the Scotland national team '

    https://tinyurl.com/yrbr5asv

    Only because nat twats boo anyone who isn't a fellow nat. However plenty of Rangers players still play for Scotland and are supported by Rangers fans. They are Scottish and Unionist not English
    There weren't any Rangers players playing for Scotland this week when they beat Ukraine.
    Last time I saw Rangers play, their fans booed "Flower Of Scotland".
    Robby McCrorie, Ryan Jack, both Rangers players in the current Scotland squad
    They didn't play.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    edited September 2022

    Oh for those halcyon days when we had the calm, steadying hand of Priti Patel at the heart of government.

    Has Braverman been allowed out of her room yet? If so, I have missed it.
  • PeterMPeterM Posts: 302
    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The question is stupid and utterly self defeating. It has been answered repeatedly. If you had your way we would have not made progress and settled for some arbitrary so called ‘natural’ limit years ago.
    Still no answers then. And those bygone eras are not comparable to today. That was an age where people were getting healthier and basic nutrition provided a huge boost to people's health and longevity. We're now at the other end of the scale where people's lifestyles are now a burden, especially in older age.

    Until recently there was never a time where a person with dementia would be kept alive and have their life lengthened for an unlimited period of time. That's what we're doing, keeping shells of people alive, for what no one really knows but they exist and cost the state billions that could be better spent on cancer care, stroke rehabilitation and plenty of other healthcare needs.

    We've arbitrarily decided that life quality doesn't matter if the patient is unable to say so and even in some cases where they have said so they are unable to be assisted in dying.
    Dementia also wrecks the lives of those around the afflicted person. The alternatives are care for a shell of a person who will steadily deteriorate or pay for expensive long term care
  • HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    The definition of a conservative is someone who loves their country but hates most of the people in it.
    No conservative would deny healthcare to the old, libertarians might but they are not conservatives
    The Libertarians have taken control of the Conservative Party.

    They might not be your flavour of Conservative, but that is the nature of your party under Truss.
    Question is- how did this happen? The many purges since 2016 are part of the story, but not all of it.

    Suppose Truss had been upfront and explicit about her intentions during the leadership campaign. Would she have won anyway? I fear that the "Rishi was mean to poor Boris" factor would have got her over the line.
    To be fair, Minford predicted massive increases in interest rates but we weren’t really listening.
    Then he backtracked. Bet he wishes he had stuck to his original 7%.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,782
    It's not just demographics. Indeed, given such a large chunk of healthcare spending occurs in the last 12 months or so (regardless of when those 12 months occur), an aging population isn't too problematic as long as people are staying healthier for longer too.

    There is a growth rate in healthcare spending that exists even controlling for an aging population (I found around 1%). Technological innovation, increase in chronic conditions, Baumol cost disease - this is the stuff we need to fix, I think.

    I also think we need to take a step back - helping sick people is a good thing. Let's swap the chronic condition spending on technology, even if overall health spending continues to increase.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,217
    edited September 2022
    Cookie said:

    Also while I'm whingeing, it turns out that should middle daughter fail the 11+, she will have a choice of exactly one school, which is shit, such is the pressure on school places in Trafford. There are some very good non-grammars in Trafford, but if you live more than a mile from them, forget it.

    Many, many years ago my parents chose to send their children to Knutsford High School rather than any of the Trafford schools. They weren’t the only ones: a sizable number of parents followed some of the same thought processes & by the time I left four or five coachloads were driving from Trafford to Knutsford & back on a daily basis.

    (In their case it was for ideological reasons, we all passed the 11+.)
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,484
    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The question is stupid and utterly self defeating. It has been answered repeatedly. If you had your way we would have not made progress and settled for some arbitrary so called ‘natural’ limit years ago.
    Still no answers then. And those bygone eras are not comparable to today. That was an age where people were getting healthier and basic nutrition provided a huge boost to people's health and longevity. We're now at the other end of the scale where people's lifestyles are now a burden, especially in older age.

    Until recently there was never a time where a person with dementia would be kept alive and have their life lengthened for an unlimited period of time. That's what we're doing, keeping shells of people alive, for what no one really knows but they exist and cost the state billions that could be better spent on cancer care, stroke rehabilitation and plenty of other healthcare needs.

    We've arbitrarily decided that life quality doesn't matter if the patient is unable to say so and even in some cases where they have said so they are unable to be assisted in dying.
    Yes, quite so, and it is madness

    And it is because secular 21st century societies - devoid of the solace of religion - cannot deal with the reality of death. Death must ALWAYS be avoided even if the life is horrible and meaningless

    Atheism is a terrible wrong turning. We need more religion, and then more realism
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    The definition of a conservative is someone who loves their country but hates most of the people in it.
    No conservative would deny healthcare to the old, libertarians might but they are not conservatives
    This is not a conservative/liberal/libertarian trifecta

    We are warping society - very badly - and taxing the hard working young - to preserve people who are in their 80s and 90s, and often quite demented, who should be dead. We have found the means of keeping them alive, but not the ways of making their lives meaningful. It is a perversity. End it
    Yes it is.

    No social conservative would ever deny healthcare to the old, no matter how old they may be.

    Most in their 80s and 90s will also have paid into the system through tax and NI throughout their working lives. Encourage the rich to take out private insurance by all means but the elderly less well off still need care.

    In any case Truss and Kwarteng have axed Sunak's health and social care levy today so that is old hat as well as axing tax for rich.

    If they axe NHS spending too to pay for it an pursue the pure ideological libertarianism you suggest, then Tory defeat would turn into a landslide of worse than 1997 proportions
    Believe it or not, I'm not talking about perceived electoral advantage for any particular party, I'm not even talking about the UK really, I am talking about the way we deal with old age and death

    Because we have become irreligious everyone is terrified of dying. This is absurd. Life and death are as they always were. They are the weave of human consciousness which embroiders the universe with a strange crucial gold

    We force old demented people to stay alive because WE are scared of what death means, most of these people need to be gone, and would probably and happily accept that fate, given the right solace by the humans around them

    Get rid of the fear and we will realise we should not build societies around this absurd dread. We are little better than the ancient Egyptians throwing up vast expensive pyramids for terrified pharaohs, except we build pyramids of atheist terror called care homes

    The truly religious, led of course by the Roman Catholic church, are also staunchly anti any form of euthanasia.

    There are some good care homes around, what we want is to support our elderly in their last years not kill them off
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    The definition of a conservative is someone who loves their country but hates most of the people in it.
    No conservative would deny healthcare to the old, libertarians might but they are not conservatives
    This is not a conservative/liberal/libertarian trifecta

    We are warping society - very badly - and taxing the hard working young - to preserve people who are in their 80s and 90s, and often quite demented, who should be dead. We have found the means of keeping them alive, but not the ways of making their lives meaningful. It is a perversity. End it
    Yes it is.

    No social conservative would ever deny healthcare to the old, no matter how old they may be.

    Most in their 80s and 90s will also have paid into the system through tax and NI throughout their working lives. Encourage the rich to take out private insurance by all means but the elderly less well off still need care.

    In any case Truss and Kwarteng have axed Sunak's health and social care levy today so that is old hat as well as axing tax for rich.

    If they axe NHS spending too to pay for it an pursue the pure ideological libertarianism you suggest, then Tory defeat would turn into a landslide of worse than 1997 proportions
    Believe it or not, I'm not talking about perceived electoral advantage for any particular party, I'm not even talking about the UK really, I am talking about the way we deal with old age and death

    Because we have become irreligious everyone is terrified of dying. This is absurd. Life and death are as they always were. They are the weave of human consciousness which embroiders the universe with a strange crucial gold

    We force old demented people to stay alive because WE are scared of what death means, most of these people need to be gone, and would probably and happily accept that fate, given the right solace by the humans around them

    Get rid of the fear and we will realise we should not build societies around this absurd dread. We are little better than the ancient Egyptians throwing up vast expensive pyramids for terrified pharaohs, except we build pyramids of atheist terror called care homes

    The truly religious, led of course by the Roman Catholic church, are also staunchly anti any form of euthanasia.

    There are some good care homes around, what we want is to support our elderly in their last years not kill them off
    What you really want is to stop smugly dictating to "your elderly" from a self-defined position of "truly religious," meaning in reality narrow-minded bigotry wuth a New Testament veneer over the top. If and when I want tio die, what in the name of Christ does it have to do with a ghastly little semi-educated Essex god-botherer like you?

    No offence.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,605
    PeterM said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The question is stupid and utterly self defeating. It has been answered repeatedly. If you had your way we would have not made progress and settled for some arbitrary so called ‘natural’ limit years ago.
    Still no answers then. And those bygone eras are not comparable to today. That was an age where people were getting healthier and basic nutrition provided a huge boost to people's health and longevity. We're now at the other end of the scale where people's lifestyles are now a burden, especially in older age.

    Until recently there was never a time where a person with dementia would be kept alive and have their life lengthened for an unlimited period of time. That's what we're doing, keeping shells of people alive, for what no one really knows but they exist and cost the state billions that could be better spent on cancer care, stroke rehabilitation and plenty of other healthcare needs.

    We've arbitrarily decided that life quality doesn't matter if the patient is unable to say so and even in some cases where they have said so they are unable to be assisted in dying.
    Dementia also wrecks the lives of those around the afflicted person. The alternatives are care for a shell of a person who will steadily deteriorate or pay for expensive long term care
    Or stop providing life lengthening care.
  • PeterMPeterM Posts: 302

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The UK isn't turning into Japan because Japan invests in infrastructure and housing. You can get a 1 bedroom apartment for about £650pcm in Tokyo (https://resources.realestate.co.jp/rent/what-is-the-average-rent-in-tokyo-2020-ranking-by-ward-and-layout/) compared to £2000 in London (https://www.home.co.uk/for_rent/london/current_rents?location=london). We're turning into a cross between Greece, in terms of lack of opportunities for the young, and Portugal, in terms of rentierism.
    Problem is at least those places have nice weather. Better to be poor in Greece than the UK
  • Scott_xP said:

    Markets currently predicting interest rates will go to 5.5% which will be absolutely brutal for people who borrowed initially at 1-2%. Will far exceed any savings from tax cuts.
    https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1573417917676687360

    That's getting close to the unaffordable range right? Pity about the old stress test.
    Very glad we got our 5 year fixed rate at 1.35% in February....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    England's Nations League campaign so far:

    ▪️ Zero wins in five matches
    ▪️ One goal in five matches
    ▪️ Relegation confirmed

    Worrying signs from Gareth Southgate's Three Lions.

    😬 https://twitter.com/WilliamHill/status/1573412228002463751/photo/1

    Tonight's result penance from above for football fans in England not showing enough respect and mourning after the recent passing of Her Majesty.

    Rangers fans put them to shame!

    Rangers fans support England as well!
    No, they support Scotland, just are loyal to our monarch and the UK too
    As is often the case you're way out of touch.

    'The three reasons Rangers fans have fallen out of love with the Scotland national team '

    https://tinyurl.com/yrbr5asv

    Only because nat twats boo anyone who isn't a fellow nat. However plenty of Rangers players still play for Scotland and are supported by Rangers fans. They are Scottish and Unionist not English
    There weren't any Rangers players playing for Scotland this week when they beat Ukraine.
    Last time I saw Rangers play, their fans booed "Flower Of Scotland".
    Robby McCrorie, Ryan Jack, both Rangers players in the current Scotland squad
    They didn't play.
    They are still in the squad, there are no Rangers players in the England squad however
  • 20 point lead absolutely nailed on now. This budget has been very poorly received and has probably lost the Red Wall for good
  • HOWEVER

    I am some pints deep so partyyyyy
  • PeterMPeterM Posts: 302
    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    The biggest change in the last thirty years is not the fall in owners and rise in renters, though that is significant: it is the related rise in outright-owners and fall in mortgage-carrying-owners. High interest rates will be brutal for a small concentrated part of society - mainly those in their 30s and 40s. Probably not good for fertility rates.

    More than half of homeowners now don’t have a mortgage, a record high.

    You cannot solve a housing crisis when the population of the country is rising so fast. No matter how fast you build homes it won't be enough. In the 70s and 80s the population was almost flat which meant it was easy to build enough homes.
    And the only reason it is rising is immigration, further tighten controls there on non EU immigration especially and the problem becomes less of an issue. The UK birthrate is below replacement level, it was higher in the 70s and 80s but immigration was lower
    Problem is cut immigration and economic growth plummets
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,460

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The UK isn't turning into Japan because Japan invests in infrastructure and housing. You can get a 1 bedroom apartment for about £650pcm in Tokyo (https://resources.realestate.co.jp/rent/what-is-the-average-rent-in-tokyo-2020-ranking-by-ward-and-layout/) compared to £2000 in London (https://www.home.co.uk/for_rent/london/current_rents?location=london). We're turning into a cross between Greece, in terms of lack of opportunities for the young, and Portugal, in terms of rentierism.
    You’re comparing outer Tokyo with inner London. You can get a 1 bed in Hounslow, for example, for £1000.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    The definition of a conservative is someone who loves their country but hates most of the people in it.
    No conservative would deny healthcare to the old, libertarians might but they are not conservatives
    This is not a conservative/liberal/libertarian trifecta

    We are warping society - very badly - and taxing the hard working young - to preserve people who are in their 80s and 90s, and often quite demented, who should be dead. We have found the means of keeping them alive, but not the ways of making their lives meaningful. It is a perversity. End it
    Yes it is.

    No social conservative would ever deny healthcare to the old, no matter how old they may be.

    Most in their 80s and 90s will also have paid into the system through tax and NI throughout their working lives. Encourage the rich to take out private insurance by all means but the elderly less well off still need care.

    In any case Truss and Kwarteng have axed Sunak's health and social care levy today so that is old hat as well as axing tax for rich.

    If they axe NHS spending too to pay for it an pursue the pure ideological libertarianism you suggest, then Tory defeat would turn into a landslide of worse than 1997 proportions
    Believe it or not, I'm not talking about perceived electoral advantage for any particular party, I'm not even talking about the UK really, I am talking about the way we deal with old age and death

    Because we have become irreligious everyone is terrified of dying. This is absurd. Life and death are as they always were. They are the weave of human consciousness which embroiders the universe with a strange crucial gold

    We force old demented people to stay alive because WE are scared of what death means, most of these people need to be gone, and would probably and happily accept that fate, given the right solace by the humans around them

    Get rid of the fear and we will realise we should not build societies around this absurd dread. We are little better than the ancient Egyptians throwing up vast expensive pyramids for terrified pharaohs, except we build pyramids of atheist terror called care homes

    The truly religious, led of course by the Roman Catholic church, are also staunchly anti any form of euthanasia.

    There are some good care homes around, what we want is to support our elderly in their last years not kill them off
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    The definition of a conservative is someone who loves their country but hates most of the people in it.
    No conservative would deny healthcare to the old, libertarians might but they are not conservatives
    This is not a conservative/liberal/libertarian trifecta

    We are warping society - very badly - and taxing the hard working young - to preserve people who are in their 80s and 90s, and often quite demented, who should be dead. We have found the means of keeping them alive, but not the ways of making their lives meaningful. It is a perversity. End it
    Yes it is.

    No social conservative would ever deny healthcare to the old, no matter how old they may be.

    Most in their 80s and 90s will also have paid into the system through tax and NI throughout their working lives. Encourage the rich to take out private insurance by all means but the elderly less well off still need care.

    In any case Truss and Kwarteng have axed Sunak's health and social care levy today so that is old hat as well as axing tax for rich.

    If they axe NHS spending too to pay for it an pursue the pure ideological libertarianism you suggest, then Tory defeat would turn into a landslide of worse than 1997 proportions
    Believe it or not, I'm not talking about perceived electoral advantage for any particular party, I'm not even talking about the UK really, I am talking about the way we deal with old age and death

    Because we have become irreligious everyone is terrified of dying. This is absurd. Life and death are as they always were. They are the weave of human consciousness which embroiders the universe with a strange crucial gold

    We force old demented people to stay alive because WE are scared of what death means, most of these people need to be gone, and would probably and happily accept that fate, given the right solace by the humans around them

    Get rid of the fear and we will realise we should not build societies around this absurd dread. We are little better than the ancient Egyptians throwing up vast expensive pyramids for terrified pharaohs, except we build pyramids of atheist terror called care homes

    The truly religious, led of course by the Roman Catholic church, are also staunchly anti any form of euthanasia.

    There are some good care homes around, what we want is to support our elderly in their last years not kill them off
    What you really want is to stop smugly dictating to "your elderly" from a self-defined position of "truly religious," meaning in reality narrow-minded bigotry wuth a New Testament veneer over the top. If and when I want tio die, what in the name of Christ does it have to do with a ghastly little semi-educated Essex god-botherer like you?

    No offence.
    Everything, as life is sacred and given by God. Only God has the right to decide when to take it away
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914
    maxh said:

    @TinkyWinky lay off @BartholomewRoberts please. I disagree with his posts as much as you do I suspect, but the ad hominem is unpleasant. Having others post what we disagree with is what makes PB valuable.

    Posting repetitive bollox in enormous quantity is what makes PB valuable?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    PeterM said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    The biggest change in the last thirty years is not the fall in owners and rise in renters, though that is significant: it is the related rise in outright-owners and fall in mortgage-carrying-owners. High interest rates will be brutal for a small concentrated part of society - mainly those in their 30s and 40s. Probably not good for fertility rates.

    More than half of homeowners now don’t have a mortgage, a record high.

    You cannot solve a housing crisis when the population of the country is rising so fast. No matter how fast you build homes it won't be enough. In the 70s and 80s the population was almost flat which meant it was easy to build enough homes.
    And the only reason it is rising is immigration, further tighten controls there on non EU immigration especially and the problem becomes less of an issue. The UK birthrate is below replacement level, it was higher in the 70s and 80s but immigration was lower
    Problem is cut immigration and economic growth plummets
    Not if the immigration you are cutting is not very high skilled
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651
    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The question is stupid and utterly self defeating. It has been answered repeatedly. If you had your way we would have not made progress and settled for some arbitrary so called ‘natural’ limit years ago.
    Still no answers then. And those bygone eras are not comparable to today. That was an age where people were getting healthier and basic nutrition provided a huge boost to people's health and longevity.
    For a reason. Which wasn't charity. From a poster at the time of the Tudor Walters Report: "You cannot expect to get an A1 population out of C3 homes." (Those were military fitness classifications.)

  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,484
    PeterM said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The UK isn't turning into Japan because Japan invests in infrastructure and housing. You can get a 1 bedroom apartment for about £650pcm in Tokyo (https://resources.realestate.co.jp/rent/what-is-the-average-rent-in-tokyo-2020-ranking-by-ward-and-layout/) compared to £2000 in London (https://www.home.co.uk/for_rent/london/current_rents?location=london). We're turning into a cross between Greece, in terms of lack of opportunities for the young, and Portugal, in terms of rentierism.
    Problem is at least those places have nice weather. Better to be poor in Greece than the UK
    For how long tho? The Mediterranean - for the first time in my life - has become a place where you think, Fuck, this is too hot - for long parts of the summer
  • Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    Can we do “this” while not becoming progressively poorer than comparable countries? If there’s no limit on healthcare spending, it could take over the whole economy.
    Of course we can do it, we’ve done it many times before. Let’s keep pushing the boundaries and providing a great, long life for our citizens. Isnt that what it’s all about?
    We could turn the country into a cradle to grave institution and people could simply transition from boarding school to workhouse to nursing home. On alternate nights everyone could clap for the Education Service, the Employment Service and the Health Service.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,732
    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The question is stupid and utterly self defeating. It has been answered repeatedly. If you had your way we would have not made progress and settled for some arbitrary so called ‘natural’ limit years ago.
    Still no answers then. And those bygone eras are not comparable to today. That was an age where people were getting healthier and basic nutrition provided a huge boost to people's health and longevity. We're now at the other end of the scale where people's lifestyles are now a burden, especially in older age.

    Until recently there was never a time where a person with dementia would be kept alive and have their life lengthened for an unlimited period of time. That's what we're doing, keeping shells of people alive, for what no one really knows but they exist and cost the state billions that could be better spent on cancer care, stroke rehabilitation and plenty of other healthcare needs.

    We've arbitrarily decided that life quality doesn't matter if the patient is unable to say so and even in some cases where they have said so they are unable to be assisted in dying.
    That is not correct. We do not keep people alive when they have no quality of life. Sensitive discussion is needed with patients and relatives in order to set a treatment plan, and that may well be palliative care. I speak not just professionally, but also from personal experience. My mother in law died a year ago, with an explicit care plan to nurse her to a comfortable death after a major stroke on a background of moderate dementia.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942
    edited September 2022
    PeterM said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The UK isn't turning into Japan because Japan invests in infrastructure and housing. You can get a 1 bedroom apartment for about £650pcm in Tokyo (https://resources.realestate.co.jp/rent/what-is-the-average-rent-in-tokyo-2020-ranking-by-ward-and-layout/) compared to £2000 in London (https://www.home.co.uk/for_rent/london/current_rents?location=london). We're turning into a cross between Greece, in terms of lack of opportunities for the young, and Portugal, in terms of rentierism.
    Problem is at least those places have nice weather. Better to be poor in Greece than the UK
    The reason that house prices are different in Japan is to do with the rate of house building relative to population increase.

    This is Japan's population

    image
  • HOWEVER

    I am some pints deep so partyyyyy

    I knew you'd spend your Kwarteng tax bonus on shots.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,217
    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Ok laying myself on the line here because people probably think I am callous.

    My father is 82. He is in reasonable physical health. However his mind is almost gone. Doctors insist on treating him everytime he gets ill but he has no real life anymore. He doesnt know he is, who we are, what day of the week it is. Why are we spending money keeping him going he is a walking zombie to be frank. I love my dad to bits but thats just a physical shell the person has long since departed. The only reason he isn't in a home is because the people round him spend time trying to keep him safe and out of one. Do I want him gone...hell no but I find less and less reasons to go out of the way to keep him from passing

    Ok you have my sympathy and I can see where you are coming from now with your comments.
    If my father was still the man I knew maybe I would feel differently but he is not, the nhs are keeping him alive...because. Most times I go call on him he is crying because his brothers dont visit him or my mother well they all died 20 years ago. He does nothing enjoys nothing these days half the time he wont even go eat a meal with me because he thinks I am someone trying to scam him as he doesnt recognise me.

    I get calls from his housing manager all the time and have to go down as he has left his front door open. We had to disconnect the cooker as he cant be relied on to turn it off
    That’s really tough Pagan2.

    I remember talking to my grandmother when she was compos mentis enough to hold a conversation, but her dementia had advanced to the point that she no longer knew who she was talking to (or at least she had to be told who I was). She told me in clear terms that it was no life at all. It’s very hard on everyone & in some ways worse on those doing the supporting I think.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491
    edited September 2022

    I see the Mail has moved on very quickly from worshipping everything Johnson's government was doing.

    So has Truss in fairness. I do get collective responsibility, I really do, but I still cannot understand how she clearly feels there is a need to be very radical, yet by her own words she would have preferred not to be radical, but to have Boris remaining in place with his same policies (since he gave no indication of acting as she has).

    According to Truss, these are incredible vital actions to secure growth, but also we should not have done them if Boris said so.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 2,356
    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    The definition of a conservative is someone who loves their country but hates most of the people in it.
    No conservative would deny healthcare to the old, libertarians might but they are not conservatives
    This is not a conservative/liberal/libertarian trifecta

    We are warping society - very badly - and taxing the hard working young - to preserve people who are in their 80s and 90s, and often quite demented, who should be dead. We have found the means of keeping them alive, but not the ways of making their lives meaningful. It is a perversity. End it
    Yes it is.

    No social conservative would ever deny healthcare to the old, no matter how old they may be.

    Most in their 80s and 90s will also have paid into the system through tax and NI throughout their working lives. Encourage the rich to take out private insurance by all means but the elderly less well off still need care.

    In any case Truss and Kwarteng have axed Sunak's health and social care levy today so that is old hat as well as axing tax for rich.

    If they axe NHS spending too to pay for it an pursue the pure ideological libertarianism you suggest, then Tory defeat would turn into a landslide of worse than 1997 proportions
    Believe it or not, I'm not talking about perceived electoral advantage for any particular party, I'm not even talking about the UK really, I am talking about the way we deal with old age and death

    Because we have become irreligious everyone is terrified of dying. This is absurd. Life and death are as they always were. They are the weave of human consciousness which embroiders the universe with a strange crucial gold

    We force old demented people to stay alive because WE are scared of what death means, most of these people need to be gone, and would probably and happily accept that fate, given the right solace by the humans around them

    Get rid of the fear and we will realise we should not build societies around this absurd dread. We are little better than the ancient Egyptians throwing up vast expensive pyramids for terrified pharaohs, except we build pyramids of atheist terror called care homes

    The truly religious, led of course by the Roman Catholic church, are also staunchly anti any form of euthanasia.

    There are some good care homes around, what we want is to support our elderly in their last years not kill them off
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    The definition of a conservative is someone who loves their country but hates most of the people in it.
    No conservative would deny healthcare to the old, libertarians might but they are not conservatives
    This is not a conservative/liberal/libertarian trifecta

    We are warping society - very badly - and taxing the hard working young - to preserve people who are in their 80s and 90s, and often quite demented, who should be dead. We have found the means of keeping them alive, but not the ways of making their lives meaningful. It is a perversity. End it
    Yes it is.

    No social conservative would ever deny healthcare to the old, no matter how old they may be.

    Most in their 80s and 90s will also have paid into the system through tax and NI throughout their working lives. Encourage the rich to take out private insurance by all means but the elderly less well off still need care.

    In any case Truss and Kwarteng have axed Sunak's health and social care levy today so that is old hat as well as axing tax for rich.

    If they axe NHS spending too to pay for it an pursue the pure ideological libertarianism you suggest, then Tory defeat would turn into a landslide of worse than 1997 proportions
    Believe it or not, I'm not talking about perceived electoral advantage for any particular party, I'm not even talking about the UK really, I am talking about the way we deal with old age and death

    Because we have become irreligious everyone is terrified of dying. This is absurd. Life and death are as they always were. They are the weave of human consciousness which embroiders the universe with a strange crucial gold

    We force old demented people to stay alive because WE are scared of what death means, most of these people need to be gone, and would probably and happily accept that fate, given the right solace by the humans around them

    Get rid of the fear and we will realise we should not build societies around this absurd dread. We are little better than the ancient Egyptians throwing up vast expensive pyramids for terrified pharaohs, except we build pyramids of atheist terror called care homes

    The truly religious, led of course by the Roman Catholic church, are also staunchly anti any form of euthanasia.

    There are some good care homes around, what we want is to support our elderly in their last years not kill them off
    What you really want is to stop smugly dictating to "your elderly" from a self-defined position of "truly religious," meaning in reality narrow-minded bigotry wuth a New Testament veneer over the top. If and when I want tio die, what in the name of Christ does it have to do with a ghastly little semi-educated Essex god-botherer like you?

    No offence.
    Everything, as life is sacred and given by God. Only God has the right to decide when to take it away
    God and Sir Graham Brady.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,918
    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The question is stupid and utterly self defeating. It has been answered repeatedly. If you had your way we would have not made progress and settled for some arbitrary so called ‘natural’ limit years ago.
    Still no answers then. And those bygone eras are not comparable to today. That was an age where people were getting healthier and basic nutrition provided a huge boost to people's health and longevity. We're now at the other end of the scale where people's lifestyles are now a burden, especially in older age.

    Until recently there was never a time where a person with dementia would be kept alive and have their life lengthened for an unlimited period of time. That's what we're doing, keeping shells of people alive, for what no one really knows but they exist and cost the state billions that could be better spent on cancer care, stroke rehabilitation and plenty of other healthcare needs.

    We've arbitrarily decided that life quality doesn't matter if the patient is unable to say so and even in some cases where they have said so they are unable to be assisted in dying.
    You are suffering from a disease endemic across the West A deep pessimism and decline. It is utterly self defeating. Dementia is indeed a real problem today. But it won’t be forever. The solution is not euthanasia. We will make incremental improvements. In doing so we will no doubt create new unforeseen problems. But that is life.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,484
    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The question is stupid and utterly self defeating. It has been answered repeatedly. If you had your way we would have not made progress and settled for some arbitrary so called ‘natural’ limit years ago.
    Still no answers then. And those bygone eras are not comparable to today. That was an age where people were getting healthier and basic nutrition provided a huge boost to people's health and longevity. We're now at the other end of the scale where people's lifestyles are now a burden, especially in older age.

    Until recently there was never a time where a person with dementia would be kept alive and have their life lengthened for an unlimited period of time. That's what we're doing, keeping shells of people alive, for what no one really knows but they exist and cost the state billions that could be better spent on cancer care, stroke rehabilitation and plenty of other healthcare needs.

    We've arbitrarily decided that life quality doesn't matter if the patient is unable to say so and even in some cases where they have said so they are unable to be assisted in dying.
    That is not correct. We do not keep people alive when they have no quality of life. Sensitive discussion is needed with patients and relatives in order to set a treatment plan, and that may well be palliative care. I speak not just professionally, but also from personal experience. My mother in law died a year ago, with an explicit care plan to nurse her to a comfortable death after a major stroke on a background of moderate dementia.
    With all respect, that is not my experience at all

    Many friends and family report years of distressing dementia in old and close relatives
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    Can we do “this” while not becoming progressively poorer than comparable countries? If there’s no limit on healthcare spending, it could take over the whole economy.
    You think in the UK we've peaked in absolute terms on living standards and should now be looking at poorer shorter lives?
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,782
    Eabhal said:

    It's not just demographics. Indeed, given such a large chunk of healthcare spending occurs in the last 12 months or so (regardless of when those 12 months occur), an aging population isn't too problematic as long as people are staying healthier for longer too.

    There is a growth rate in healthcare spending that exists even controlling for an aging population (I found around 1%). Technological innovation, increase in chronic conditions, Baumol cost disease - this is the stuff we need to fix, I think.

    I also think we need to take a step back - helping sick people is a good thing. Let's swap the chronic condition spending on technology, even if overall health spending continues to increase.

    I also came up with a formula that adjusted the state pension age by expected life expectancy at the SPA so the expected number of years in retirement was fixed as an an absolute figure or as proportion of total working life. Tricky though, as you need to give people 10/15 years notice.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,732
    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The question is stupid and utterly self defeating. It has been answered repeatedly. If you had your way we would have not made progress and settled for some arbitrary so called ‘natural’ limit years ago.
    Still no answers then. And those bygone eras are not comparable to today. That was an age where people were getting healthier and basic nutrition provided a huge boost to people's health and longevity. We're now at the other end of the scale where people's lifestyles are now a burden, especially in older age.

    Until recently there was never a time where a person with dementia would be kept alive and have their life lengthened for an unlimited period of time. That's what we're doing, keeping shells of people alive, for what no one really knows but they exist and cost the state billions that could be better spent on cancer care, stroke rehabilitation and plenty of other healthcare needs.

    We've arbitrarily decided that life quality doesn't matter if the patient is unable to say so and even in some cases where they have said so they are unable to be assisted in dying.
    That is not correct. We do not keep people alive when they have no quality of life. Sensitive discussion is needed with patients and relatives in order to set a treatment plan, and that may well be palliative care. I speak not just professionally, but also from personal experience. My mother in law died a year ago, with an explicit care plan to nurse her to a comfortable death after a major stroke on a background of moderate dementia.
    With all respect, that is not my experience at all

    Many friends and family report years of distressing dementia in old and close relatives
    Neither dementia nor distress are inevitable. Dying with a clear mind and after a lifetime of good health at the age of 96 is perfectly possible, indeed not even unusual for people who look after themselves.

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    The definition of a conservative is someone who loves their country but hates most of the people in it.
    No conservative would deny healthcare to the old, libertarians might but they are not conservatives
    This is not a conservative/liberal/libertarian trifecta

    We are warping society - very badly - and taxing the hard working young - to preserve people who are in their 80s and 90s, and often quite demented, who should be dead. We have found the means of keeping them alive, but not the ways of making their lives meaningful. It is a perversity. End it
    Yes it is.

    No social conservative would ever deny healthcare to the old, no matter how old they may be.

    Most in their 80s and 90s will also have paid into the system through tax and NI throughout their working lives. Encourage the rich to take out private insurance by all means but the elderly less well off still need care.

    In any case Truss and Kwarteng have axed Sunak's health and social care levy today so that is old hat as well as axing tax for rich.

    If they axe NHS spending too to pay for it an pursue the pure ideological libertarianism you suggest, then Tory defeat would turn into a landslide of worse than 1997 proportions
    Believe it or not, I'm not talking about perceived electoral advantage for any particular party, I'm not even talking about the UK really, I am talking about the way we deal with old age and death

    Because we have become irreligious everyone is terrified of dying. This is absurd. Life and death are as they always were. They are the weave of human consciousness which embroiders the universe with a strange crucial gold

    We force old demented people to stay alive because WE are scared of what death means, most of these people need to be gone, and would probably and happily accept that fate, given the right solace by the humans around them

    Get rid of the fear and we will realise we should not build societies around this absurd dread. We are little better than the ancient Egyptians throwing up vast expensive pyramids for terrified pharaohs, except we build pyramids of atheist terror called care homes

    The truly religious, led of course by the Roman Catholic church, are also staunchly anti any form of euthanasia.

    There are some good care homes around, what we want is to support our elderly in their last years not kill them off
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    The definition of a conservative is someone who loves their country but hates most of the people in it.
    No conservative would deny healthcare to the old, libertarians might but they are not conservatives
    This is not a conservative/liberal/libertarian trifecta

    We are warping society - very badly - and taxing the hard working young - to preserve people who are in their 80s and 90s, and often quite demented, who should be dead. We have found the means of keeping them alive, but not the ways of making their lives meaningful. It is a perversity. End it
    Yes it is.

    No social conservative would ever deny healthcare to the old, no matter how old they may be.

    Most in their 80s and 90s will also have paid into the system through tax and NI throughout their working lives. Encourage the rich to take out private insurance by all means but the elderly less well off still need care.

    In any case Truss and Kwarteng have axed Sunak's health and social care levy today so that is old hat as well as axing tax for rich.

    If they axe NHS spending too to pay for it an pursue the pure ideological libertarianism you suggest, then Tory defeat would turn into a landslide of worse than 1997 proportions
    Believe it or not, I'm not talking about perceived electoral advantage for any particular party, I'm not even talking about the UK really, I am talking about the way we deal with old age and death

    Because we have become irreligious everyone is terrified of dying. This is absurd. Life and death are as they always were. They are the weave of human consciousness which embroiders the universe with a strange crucial gold

    We force old demented people to stay alive because WE are scared of what death means, most of these people need to be gone, and would probably and happily accept that fate, given the right solace by the humans around them

    Get rid of the fear and we will realise we should not build societies around this absurd dread. We are little better than the ancient Egyptians throwing up vast expensive pyramids for terrified pharaohs, except we build pyramids of atheist terror called care homes

    The truly religious, led of course by the Roman Catholic church, are also staunchly anti any form of euthanasia.

    There are some good care homes around, what we want is to support our elderly in their last years not kill them off
    What you really want is to stop smugly dictating to "your elderly" from a self-defined position of "truly religious," meaning in reality narrow-minded bigotry wuth a New Testament veneer over the top. If and when I want tio die, what in the name of Christ does it have to do with a ghastly little semi-educated Essex god-botherer like you?

    No offence.
    Everything, as life is sacred and given by God. Only God has the right to decide when to take it away
    Bugger off. If you and a bunch of other overgrown babies want to pretend to each other that is the case, fine, but keep the fuck out of other peoples' lives. "God" FFS.
  • PeterMPeterM Posts: 302
    Leon said:

    PeterM said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The UK isn't turning into Japan because Japan invests in infrastructure and housing. You can get a 1 bedroom apartment for about £650pcm in Tokyo (https://resources.realestate.co.jp/rent/what-is-the-average-rent-in-tokyo-2020-ranking-by-ward-and-layout/) compared to £2000 in London (https://www.home.co.uk/for_rent/london/current_rents?location=london). We're turning into a cross between Greece, in terms of lack of opportunities for the young, and Portugal, in terms of rentierism.
    Problem is at least those places have nice weather. Better to be poor in Greece than the UK
    For how long tho? The Mediterranean - for the first time in my life - has become a place where you think, Fuck, this is too hot - for long parts of the summer
    Think the northern meditteranean like the south of france should stay bearable in summer...souther spain and greece maybe less so
  • Cookie said:

    Also while I'm whingeing, it turns out that should middle daughter fail the 11+, she will have a choice of exactly one school, which is shit, such is the pressure on school places in Trafford. There are some very good non-grammars in Trafford, but if you live more than a mile from them, forget it.

    Which school?
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651
    kinabalu said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    Can we do “this” while not becoming progressively poorer than comparable countries? If there’s no limit on healthcare spending, it could take over the whole economy.
    You think in the UK we've peaked in absolute terms on living standards and should now be looking at poorer shorter lives?
    Maybe the Tory government should be compared to Yeltsin rather than Putin. For a time under Yeltsin in the 1990s life expectancy in Russia was falling at 1 year per year.

    It's so obvious a megacull is coming, even if this can't be proved using the concepts of the "dismal science".
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,460
    edited September 2022
    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The question is stupid and utterly self defeating. It has been answered repeatedly. If you had your way we would have not made progress and settled for some arbitrary so called ‘natural’ limit years ago.
    Still no answers then. And those bygone eras are not comparable to today. That was an age where people were getting healthier and basic nutrition provided a huge boost to people's health and longevity. We're now at the other end of the scale where people's lifestyles are now a burden, especially in older age.

    Until recently there was never a time where a person with dementia would be kept alive and have their life lengthened for an unlimited period of time. That's what we're doing, keeping shells of people alive, for what no one really knows but they exist and cost the state billions that could be better spent on cancer care, stroke rehabilitation and plenty of other healthcare needs.

    We've arbitrarily decided that life quality doesn't matter if the patient is unable to say so and even in some cases where they have said so they are unable to be assisted in dying.
    That is not correct. We do not keep people alive when they have no quality of life. Sensitive discussion is needed with patients and relatives in order to set a treatment plan, and that may well be palliative care. I speak not just professionally, but also from personal experience. My mother in law died a year ago, with an explicit care plan to nurse her to a comfortable death after a major stroke on a background of moderate dementia.
    With all respect, that is not my experience at all

    Many friends and family report years of distressing dementia in old and close relatives
    Neither dementia nor distress are inevitable. Dying with a clear mind and after a lifetime of good health at the age of 96 is perfectly possible, indeed not even unusual for people who look after themselves.

    Big element of chance, presumably. My 97 year old grandmother is sharp as a tack, but spent her whole 80s looking after my late grandfather as he descended into Alzheimers. Neither drank much nor smoked at all nor were fat.
  • PeterM said:

    Leon said:

    PeterM said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The UK isn't turning into Japan because Japan invests in infrastructure and housing. You can get a 1 bedroom apartment for about £650pcm in Tokyo (https://resources.realestate.co.jp/rent/what-is-the-average-rent-in-tokyo-2020-ranking-by-ward-and-layout/) compared to £2000 in London (https://www.home.co.uk/for_rent/london/current_rents?location=london). We're turning into a cross between Greece, in terms of lack of opportunities for the young, and Portugal, in terms of rentierism.
    Problem is at least those places have nice weather. Better to be poor in Greece than the UK
    For how long tho? The Mediterranean - for the first time in my life - has become a place where you think, Fuck, this is too hot - for long parts of the summer
    Think the northern meditteranean like the south of france should stay bearable in summer...souther spain and greece maybe less so
    There are a lot of people in France who own homes in the south of France who are looking to move to Normandy / Brittany
  • kinabalu said:

    Jonathan said:

    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.

    Can we do “this” while not becoming progressively poorer than comparable countries? If there’s no limit on healthcare spending, it could take over the whole economy.
    You think in the UK we've peaked in absolute terms on living standards and should now be looking at poorer shorter lives?
    No, the opposite. We will get left behind if we rest on our laurels.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,217
    carnforth said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The UK isn't turning into Japan because Japan invests in infrastructure and housing. You can get a 1 bedroom apartment for about £650pcm in Tokyo (https://resources.realestate.co.jp/rent/what-is-the-average-rent-in-tokyo-2020-ranking-by-ward-and-layout/) compared to £2000 in London (https://www.home.co.uk/for_rent/london/current_rents?location=london). We're turning into a cross between Greece, in terms of lack of opportunities for the young, and Portugal, in terms of rentierism.
    You’re comparing outer Tokyo with inner London. You can get a 1 bed in Hounslow, for example, for £1000.
    According to that blog post , a 1 bed with seperate living room, kitchen & dining room goes for ~ £1400 / month in one of the central 6 Tokyo districts. You’re going to pay twice that to live inside London Zone 2 in something similar at least, surely?
  • PeterMPeterM Posts: 302
    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The question is stupid and utterly self defeating. It has been answered repeatedly. If you had your way we would have not made progress and settled for some arbitrary so called ‘natural’ limit years ago.
    Still no answers then. And those bygone eras are not comparable to today. That was an age where people were getting healthier and basic nutrition provided a huge boost to people's health and longevity. We're now at the other end of the scale where people's lifestyles are now a burden, especially in older age.

    Until recently there was never a time where a person with dementia would be kept alive and have their life lengthened for an unlimited period of time. That's what we're doing, keeping shells of people alive, for what no one really knows but they exist and cost the state billions that could be better spent on cancer care, stroke rehabilitation and plenty of other healthcare needs.

    We've arbitrarily decided that life quality doesn't matter if the patient is unable to say so and even in some cases where they have said so they are unable to be assisted in dying.
    That is not correct. We do not keep people alive when they have no quality of life. Sensitive discussion is needed with patients and relatives in order to set a treatment plan, and that may well be palliative care. I speak not just professionally, but also from personal experience. My mother in law died a year ago, with an explicit care plan to nurse her to a comfortable death after a major stroke on a background of moderate dementia.
    With all respect, that is not my experience at all

    Many friends and family report years of distressing dementia in old and close relatives
    Neither dementia nor distress are inevitable. Dying with a clear mind and after a lifetime of good health at the age of 96 is perfectly possible, indeed not even unusual for people who look after themselves.

    Probably helps if you are a royal with the highest quality food and relatively stress free life
  • maxh said:

    @TinkyWinky lay off @BartholomewRoberts please. I disagree with his posts as much as you do I suspect, but the ad hominem is unpleasant. Having others post what we disagree with is what makes PB valuable.

    Ok bud, I'll try.
    Nah don't, I like your refreshing honesty and analysis. Keep doing what you're doing, one of the best recent additions to this site.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    The definition of a conservative is someone who loves their country but hates most of the people in it.
    No conservative would deny healthcare to the old, libertarians might but they are not conservatives
    This is not a conservative/liberal/libertarian trifecta

    We are warping society - very badly - and taxing the hard working young - to preserve people who are in their 80s and 90s, and often quite demented, who should be dead. We have found the means of keeping them alive, but not the ways of making their lives meaningful. It is a perversity. End it
    Yes it is.

    No social conservative would ever deny healthcare to the old, no matter how old they may be.

    Most in their 80s and 90s will also have paid into the system through tax and NI throughout their working lives. Encourage the rich to take out private insurance by all means but the elderly less well off still need care.

    In any case Truss and Kwarteng have axed Sunak's health and social care levy today so that is old hat as well as axing tax for rich.

    If they axe NHS spending too to pay for it an pursue the pure ideological libertarianism you suggest, then Tory defeat would turn into a landslide of worse than 1997 proportions
    Believe it or not, I'm not talking about perceived electoral advantage for any particular party, I'm not even talking about the UK really, I am talking about the way we deal with old age and death

    Because we have become irreligious everyone is terrified of dying. This is absurd. Life and death are as they always were. They are the weave of human consciousness which embroiders the universe with a strange crucial gold

    We force old demented people to stay alive because WE are scared of what death means, most of these people need to be gone, and would probably and happily accept that fate, given the right solace by the humans around them

    Get rid of the fear and we will realise we should not build societies around this absurd dread. We are little better than the ancient Egyptians throwing up vast expensive pyramids for terrified pharaohs, except we build pyramids of atheist terror called care homes

    The truly religious, led of course by the Roman Catholic church, are also staunchly anti any form of euthanasia.

    There are some good care homes around, what we want is to support our elderly in their last years not kill them off
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    The definition of a conservative is someone who loves their country but hates most of the people in it.
    No conservative would deny healthcare to the old, libertarians might but they are not conservatives
    This is not a conservative/liberal/libertarian trifecta

    We are warping society - very badly - and taxing the hard working young - to preserve people who are in their 80s and 90s, and often quite demented, who should be dead. We have found the means of keeping them alive, but not the ways of making their lives meaningful. It is a perversity. End it
    Yes it is.

    No social conservative would ever deny healthcare to the old, no matter how old they may be.

    Most in their 80s and 90s will also have paid into the system through tax and NI throughout their working lives. Encourage the rich to take out private insurance by all means but the elderly less well off still need care.

    In any case Truss and Kwarteng have axed Sunak's health and social care levy today so that is old hat as well as axing tax for rich.

    If they axe NHS spending too to pay for it an pursue the pure ideological libertarianism you suggest, then Tory defeat would turn into a landslide of worse than 1997 proportions
    Believe it or not, I'm not talking about perceived electoral advantage for any particular party, I'm not even talking about the UK really, I am talking about the way we deal with old age and death

    Because we have become irreligious everyone is terrified of dying. This is absurd. Life and death are as they always were. They are the weave of human consciousness which embroiders the universe with a strange crucial gold

    We force old demented people to stay alive because WE are scared of what death means, most of these people need to be gone, and would probably and happily accept that fate, given the right solace by the humans around them

    Get rid of the fear and we will realise we should not build societies around this absurd dread. We are little better than the ancient Egyptians throwing up vast expensive pyramids for terrified pharaohs, except we build pyramids of atheist terror called care homes

    The truly religious, led of course by the Roman Catholic church, are also staunchly anti any form of euthanasia.

    There are some good care homes around, what we want is to support our elderly in their last years not kill them off
    What you really want is to stop smugly dictating to "your elderly" from a self-defined position of "truly religious," meaning in reality narrow-minded bigotry wuth a New Testament veneer over the top. If and when I want tio die, what in the name of Christ does it have to do with a ghastly little semi-educated Essex god-botherer like you?

    No offence.
    Post of the evening

    (And I actually believe in God)
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,605
    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The question is stupid and utterly self defeating. It has been answered repeatedly. If you had your way we would have not made progress and settled for some arbitrary so called ‘natural’ limit years ago.
    Still no answers then. And those bygone eras are not comparable to today. That was an age where people were getting healthier and basic nutrition provided a huge boost to people's health and longevity. We're now at the other end of the scale where people's lifestyles are now a burden, especially in older age.

    Until recently there was never a time where a person with dementia would be kept alive and have their life lengthened for an unlimited period of time. That's what we're doing, keeping shells of people alive, for what no one really knows but they exist and cost the state billions that could be better spent on cancer care, stroke rehabilitation and plenty of other healthcare needs.

    We've arbitrarily decided that life quality doesn't matter if the patient is unable to say so and even in some cases where they have said so they are unable to be assisted in dying.
    That is not correct. We do not keep people alive when they have no quality of life. Sensitive discussion is needed with patients and relatives in order to set a treatment plan, and that may well be palliative care. I speak not just professionally, but also from personal experience. My mother in law died a year ago, with an explicit care plan to nurse her to a comfortable death after a major stroke on a background of moderate dementia.
    The two most recent experiences I've had are to the contrary. In the most recent case my grandad was offered treatment for brain cancer aged 89, he already had some amount of dementia unrelated to the brain cancer. It was only when my dad stepped in and forced the other siblings to refuse that the NHS didn't go ahead. The doctors were, by his account, in favour of going ahead as it would give him at least two more years. My dad's reaction was "two more years of what".

    The other case is an uncle who had Alzheimer's, he had it for 12 years and during those 12 years his life was saved by the NHS countless times, he was resuscitated at least twice and all because there was no LPA and he hadn't signed a DNR when he was capable. That was a while ago so I don't know if the provision has changed since then but it was instructive for my parents who have signed DNRs and given my sister and have LPAs in place with instructions to refuse treatment should they have dementia or something along those lines.

    Maybe things are different now but I was involved in the discussions with my grandad, two of the siblings wanted to go ahead, two didn't. At that stage the NHS would have had to given life lengthening care to someone who was in an expensive care home at the taxpayers expense with 0 quality of life. I hope that doesn't happen any more.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,460
    Phil said:

    carnforth said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The UK isn't turning into Japan because Japan invests in infrastructure and housing. You can get a 1 bedroom apartment for about £650pcm in Tokyo (https://resources.realestate.co.jp/rent/what-is-the-average-rent-in-tokyo-2020-ranking-by-ward-and-layout/) compared to £2000 in London (https://www.home.co.uk/for_rent/london/current_rents?location=london). We're turning into a cross between Greece, in terms of lack of opportunities for the young, and Portugal, in terms of rentierism.
    You’re comparing outer Tokyo with inner London. You can get a 1 bed in Hounslow, for example, for £1000.
    According to that blog post , a 1 bed with seperate living room, kitchen & dining room goes for ~ £1400 / month in one of the central 6 Tokyo districts. You’re going to pay twice that to live inside London Zone 2 in something similar at least, surely?
    Oh yes, I don’t mean to claim there’s no difference: I just thought the £650 vs £2000 comparison was silly.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The question is stupid and utterly self defeating. It has been answered repeatedly. If you had your way we would have not made progress and settled for some arbitrary so called ‘natural’ limit years ago.
    Still no answers then. And those bygone eras are not comparable to today. That was an age where people were getting healthier and basic nutrition provided a huge boost to people's health and longevity. We're now at the other end of the scale where people's lifestyles are now a burden, especially in older age.

    Until recently there was never a time where a person with dementia would be kept alive and have their life lengthened for an unlimited period of time. That's what we're doing, keeping shells of people alive, for what no one really knows but they exist and cost the state billions that could be better spent on cancer care, stroke rehabilitation and plenty of other healthcare needs.

    We've arbitrarily decided that life quality doesn't matter if the patient is unable to say so and even in some cases where they have said so they are unable to be assisted in dying.
    That is not correct. We do not keep people alive when they have no quality of life. Sensitive discussion is needed with patients and relatives in order to set a treatment plan, and that may well be palliative care. I speak not just professionally, but also from personal experience. My mother in law died a year ago, with an explicit care plan to nurse her to a comfortable death after a major stroke on a background of moderate dementia.
    With all respect, that is not my experience at all

    Many friends and family report years of distressing dementia in old and close relatives
    Neither dementia nor distress are inevitable. Dying with a clear mind and after a lifetime of good health at the age of 96 is perfectly possible, indeed not even unusual for people who look after themselves.

    Odds of dementia by 90 is 40%. Not great.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    The definition of a conservative is someone who loves their country but hates most of the people in it.
    No conservative would deny healthcare to the old, libertarians might but they are not conservatives
    This is not a conservative/liberal/libertarian trifecta

    We are warping society - very badly - and taxing the hard working young - to preserve people who are in their 80s and 90s, and often quite demented, who should be dead. We have found the means of keeping them alive, but not the ways of making their lives meaningful. It is a perversity. End it
    Yes it is.

    No social conservative would ever deny healthcare to the old, no matter how old they may be.

    Most in their 80s and 90s will also have paid into the system through tax and NI throughout their working lives. Encourage the rich to take out private insurance by all means but the elderly less well off still need care.

    In any case Truss and Kwarteng have axed Sunak's health and social care levy today so that is old hat as well as axing tax for rich.

    If they axe NHS spending too to pay for it an pursue the pure ideological libertarianism you suggest, then Tory defeat would turn into a landslide of worse than 1997 proportions
    Believe it or not, I'm not talking about perceived electoral advantage for any particular party, I'm not even talking about the UK really, I am talking about the way we deal with old age and death

    Because we have become irreligious everyone is terrified of dying. This is absurd. Life and death are as they always were. They are the weave of human consciousness which embroiders the universe with a strange crucial gold

    We force old demented people to stay alive because WE are scared of what death means, most of these people need to be gone, and would probably and happily accept that fate, given the right solace by the humans around them

    Get rid of the fear and we will realise we should not build societies around this absurd dread. We are little better than the ancient Egyptians throwing up vast expensive pyramids for terrified pharaohs, except we build pyramids of atheist terror called care homes

    The truly religious, led of course by the Roman Catholic church, are also staunchly anti any form of euthanasia.

    There are some good care homes around, what we want is to support our elderly in their last years not kill them off
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    The definition of a conservative is someone who loves their country but hates most of the people in it.
    No conservative would deny healthcare to the old, libertarians might but they are not conservatives
    This is not a conservative/liberal/libertarian trifecta

    We are warping society - very badly - and taxing the hard working young - to preserve people who are in their 80s and 90s, and often quite demented, who should be dead. We have found the means of keeping them alive, but not the ways of making their lives meaningful. It is a perversity. End it
    Yes it is.

    No social conservative would ever deny healthcare to the old, no matter how old they may be.

    Most in their 80s and 90s will also have paid into the system through tax and NI throughout their working lives. Encourage the rich to take out private insurance by all means but the elderly less well off still need care.

    In any case Truss and Kwarteng have axed Sunak's health and social care levy today so that is old hat as well as axing tax for rich.

    If they axe NHS spending too to pay for it an pursue the pure ideological libertarianism you suggest, then Tory defeat would turn into a landslide of worse than 1997 proportions
    Believe it or not, I'm not talking about perceived electoral advantage for any particular party, I'm not even talking about the UK really, I am talking about the way we deal with old age and death

    Because we have become irreligious everyone is terrified of dying. This is absurd. Life and death are as they always were. They are the weave of human consciousness which embroiders the universe with a strange crucial gold

    We force old demented people to stay alive because WE are scared of what death means, most of these people need to be gone, and would probably and happily accept that fate, given the right solace by the humans around them

    Get rid of the fear and we will realise we should not build societies around this absurd dread. We are little better than the ancient Egyptians throwing up vast expensive pyramids for terrified pharaohs, except we build pyramids of atheist terror called care homes

    The truly religious, led of course by the Roman Catholic church, are also staunchly anti any form of euthanasia.

    There are some good care homes around, what we want is to support our elderly in their last years not kill them off
    What you really want is to stop smugly dictating to "your elderly" from a self-defined position of "truly religious," meaning in reality narrow-minded bigotry wuth a New Testament veneer over the top. If and when I want tio die, what in the name of Christ does it have to do with a ghastly little semi-educated Essex god-botherer like you?

    No offence.
    Everything, as life is sacred and given by God. Only God has the right to decide when to take it away
    Bugger off. If you and a bunch of other overgrown babies want to pretend to each other that is the case, fine, but keep the fuck out of other peoples' lives. "God" FFS.
    Tough, every life is sacred and made in God's own image whatever your latest rant
  • MaxPB said:

    The two most recent experiences I've had are to the contrary. In the most recent case my grandad was offered treatment for brain cancer aged 89, he already had some amount of dementia unrelated to the brain cancer. It was only when my dad stepped in and forced the other siblings to refuse that the NHS didn't go ahead. The doctors were, by his account, in favour of going ahead as it would give him at least two more years. My dad's reaction was "two more years of what".

    The other case is an uncle who had Alzheimer's, he had it for 12 years and during those 12 years his life was saved by the NHS countless times, he was resuscitated at least twice and all because there was no LPA and he hadn't signed a DNR when he was capable. That was a while ago so I don't know if the provision has changed since then but it was instructive for my parents who have signed DNRs and given my sister and have LPAs in place with instructions to refuse treatment should they have dementia or something along those lines.

    Maybe things are different now but I was involved in the discussions with my grandad, two of the siblings wanted to go ahead, two didn't. At that stage the NHS would have had to given life lengthening care to someone who was in an expensive care home at the taxpayers expense with 0 quality of life. I hope that doesn't happen any more.

    I am sorry to read this Max but it reminds me of a similar situation only a couple of years old with my own relative. It would have cost a fortune for the NHS to keep her alive and she would have hated every minute of it. I am so glad she just went off peacefully. I am sure she would have chosen assisted dying over any more suffering.

    I hope otherwise you are staying well my friend. Miss interacting with you.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,782
    edited September 2022
    carnforth said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The question is stupid and utterly self defeating. It has been answered repeatedly. If you had your way we would have not made progress and settled for some arbitrary so called ‘natural’ limit years ago.
    Still no answers then. And those bygone eras are not comparable to today. That was an age where people were getting healthier and basic nutrition provided a huge boost to people's health and longevity. We're now at the other end of the scale where people's lifestyles are now a burden, especially in older age.

    Until recently there was never a time where a person with dementia would be kept alive and have their life lengthened for an unlimited period of time. That's what we're doing, keeping shells of people alive, for what no one really knows but they exist and cost the state billions that could be better spent on cancer care, stroke rehabilitation and plenty of other healthcare needs.

    We've arbitrarily decided that life quality doesn't matter if the patient is unable to say so and even in some cases where they have said so they are unable to be assisted in dying.
    That is not correct. We do not keep people alive when they have no quality of life. Sensitive discussion is needed with patients and relatives in order to set a treatment plan, and that may well be palliative care. I speak not just professionally, but also from personal experience. My mother in law died a year ago, with an explicit care plan to nurse her to a comfortable death after a major stroke on a background of moderate dementia.
    With all respect, that is not my experience at all

    Many friends and family report years of distressing dementia in old and close relatives
    Neither dementia nor distress are inevitable. Dying with a clear mind and after a lifetime of good health at the age of 96 is perfectly possible, indeed not even unusual for people who look after themselves.

    Big element of chance, presumably. My 97 year old grandmother is sharp as a tack, but spent her whole 80s looking after my late grandfather as he descended into Alzheimers. Neither drank much or smoked at all or were fat.
    To play Devil's (Leon's) advocate, look at the difference in LE between rich and poor parts of Glasgow.

    If you have a catastrophic heart attack age 60 after contributing to Scottish industry for 45 years, seems a shit deal compared with a Uni educated lawyer (35 years "service", retired early) who has their dementia care paid for by the NHS for 15 years.
  • carnforth said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The UK isn't turning into Japan because Japan invests in infrastructure and housing. You can get a 1 bedroom apartment for about £650pcm in Tokyo (https://resources.realestate.co.jp/rent/what-is-the-average-rent-in-tokyo-2020-ranking-by-ward-and-layout/) compared to £2000 in London (https://www.home.co.uk/for_rent/london/current_rents?location=london). We're turning into a cross between Greece, in terms of lack of opportunities for the young, and Portugal, in terms of rentierism.
    You’re comparing outer Tokyo with inner London. You can get a 1 bed in Hounslow, for example, for £1000.
    No, that's average rents in the 23 metropolitan Tokyo wards (analogous to central London) VS average rents within 10 miles of SW1, which gets you out to Hounslow. Even the official government stats show you're lucky to get an average 1 bedroom apartment anywhere within greater London for less than £950 - almost 50% more than the Tokyo average, and that's purely the London outskirts!

    https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/housing-and-land/improving-private-rented-sector/london-rents-map

  • There have been some diabolical assessments of the Ukraine conflict but this has to go down as one of the worst ones:

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/holding-ground-losing-war/
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    20 point lead absolutely nailed on now. This budget has been very poorly received and has probably lost the Red Wall for good

    You are right, but I thought you were predicting Con poll lead a couple of nights ago?
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,460
    Eabhal said:

    carnforth said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The question is stupid and utterly self defeating. It has been answered repeatedly. If you had your way we would have not made progress and settled for some arbitrary so called ‘natural’ limit years ago.
    Still no answers then. And those bygone eras are not comparable to today. That was an age where people were getting healthier and basic nutrition provided a huge boost to people's health and longevity. We're now at the other end of the scale where people's lifestyles are now a burden, especially in older age.

    Until recently there was never a time where a person with dementia would be kept alive and have their life lengthened for an unlimited period of time. That's what we're doing, keeping shells of people alive, for what no one really knows but they exist and cost the state billions that could be better spent on cancer care, stroke rehabilitation and plenty of other healthcare needs.

    We've arbitrarily decided that life quality doesn't matter if the patient is unable to say so and even in some cases where they have said so they are unable to be assisted in dying.
    That is not correct. We do not keep people alive when they have no quality of life. Sensitive discussion is needed with patients and relatives in order to set a treatment plan, and that may well be palliative care. I speak not just professionally, but also from personal experience. My mother in law died a year ago, with an explicit care plan to nurse her to a comfortable death after a major stroke on a background of moderate dementia.
    With all respect, that is not my experience at all

    Many friends and family report years of distressing dementia in old and close relatives
    Neither dementia nor distress are inevitable. Dying with a clear mind and after a lifetime of good health at the age of 96 is perfectly possible, indeed not even unusual for people who look after themselves.

    Big element of chance, presumably. My 97 year old grandmother is sharp as a tack, but spent her whole 80s looking after my late grandfather as he descended into Alzheimers. Neither drank much or smoked at all or were fat.
    To play Devil's (Leon's) advocate, look at the difference in LE between rich and poor parts of Glasgow.

    If you have a catastrophic heart attack age 60 after contributing to Scottish industry for 45 years, seems a shit deal compared with a Uni educated lawyer who has their dementia care paid for by the NHS for 15 years.
    Possibly. But if you’ve seen someone with severe dementia, you can’t help thinking the heart attack at 60 might have been kinder. Nancy reagan replaced Ronald’s TV with a black and white one because the colours scared him.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,687
    My fixed mortgage deal expires in February 2024 lol. :'(
  • Some of the right on here seem a bit Janus-faced. On the one hand, they tell us that the UK is the greatest country on earth, one of the largest economies, and a centre of science and innovation. I don't disagree.

    But n the other hand, they tell us that we can't afford to ensure that people live long, fulfilling and dignified lives, even when they stop working.

    Which is it? If we're that great, and prosperous (which we are), surely we have the resources to ensure our people live happily to the end of their lives?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,918
    edited September 2022
    IshmaelZ said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The question is stupid and utterly self defeating. It has been answered repeatedly. If you had your way we would have not made progress and settled for some arbitrary so called ‘natural’ limit years ago.
    Still no answers then. And those bygone eras are not comparable to today. That was an age where people were getting healthier and basic nutrition provided a huge boost to people's health and longevity. We're now at the other end of the scale where people's lifestyles are now a burden, especially in older age.

    Until recently there was never a time where a person with dementia would be kept alive and have their life lengthened for an unlimited period of time. That's what we're doing, keeping shells of people alive, for what no one really knows but they exist and cost the state billions that could be better spent on cancer care, stroke rehabilitation and plenty of other healthcare needs.

    We've arbitrarily decided that life quality doesn't matter if the patient is unable to say so and even in some cases where they have said so they are unable to be assisted in dying.
    That is not correct. We do not keep people alive when they have no quality of life. Sensitive discussion is needed with patients and relatives in order to set a treatment plan, and that may well be palliative care. I speak not just professionally, but also from personal experience. My mother in law died a year ago, with an explicit care plan to nurse her to a comfortable death after a major stroke on a background of moderate dementia.
    With all respect, that is not my experience at all

    Many friends and family report years of distressing dementia in old and close relatives
    Neither dementia nor distress are inevitable. Dying with a clear mind and after a lifetime of good health at the age of 96 is perfectly possible, indeed not even unusual for people who look after themselves.

    Odds of dementia by 90 is 40%. Not great.
    I surprised how good those odds are. That’s today. Give it 10-20 years and it will be more like 20%. Let’s not give up. Perhaps our children or their children will look forward to long dementia free lives.

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Eabhal said:

    carnforth said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The question is stupid and utterly self defeating. It has been answered repeatedly. If you had your way we would have not made progress and settled for some arbitrary so called ‘natural’ limit years ago.
    Still no answers then. And those bygone eras are not comparable to today. That was an age where people were getting healthier and basic nutrition provided a huge boost to people's health and longevity. We're now at the other end of the scale where people's lifestyles are now a burden, especially in older age.

    Until recently there was never a time where a person with dementia would be kept alive and have their life lengthened for an unlimited period of time. That's what we're doing, keeping shells of people alive, for what no one really knows but they exist and cost the state billions that could be better spent on cancer care, stroke rehabilitation and plenty of other healthcare needs.

    We've arbitrarily decided that life quality doesn't matter if the patient is unable to say so and even in some cases where they have said so they are unable to be assisted in dying.
    That is not correct. We do not keep people alive when they have no quality of life. Sensitive discussion is needed with patients and relatives in order to set a treatment plan, and that may well be palliative care. I speak not just professionally, but also from personal experience. My mother in law died a year ago, with an explicit care plan to nurse her to a comfortable death after a major stroke on a background of moderate dementia.
    With all respect, that is not my experience at all

    Many friends and family report years of distressing dementia in old and close relatives
    Neither dementia nor distress are inevitable. Dying with a clear mind and after a lifetime of good health at the age of 96 is perfectly possible, indeed not even unusual for people who look after themselves.

    Big element of chance, presumably. My 97 year old grandmother is sharp as a tack, but spent her whole 80s looking after my late grandfather as he descended into Alzheimers. Neither drank much or smoked at all or were fat.
    To play Devil's (Leon's) advocate, look at the difference in LE between rich and poor parts of Glasgow.

    If you have a catastrophic heart attack age 60 after contributing to Scottish industry for 45 years, seems a shit deal compared with a Uni educated lawyer (35 years "service", retired early) who has their dementia care paid for by the NHS for 15 years.
    Having your dementia care paid for is not the greatest treat, though. It is quite wrong to think that demented feels like pleasantly drunk, it comes with big helpings of paranoia and anger and misery.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    20 point lead absolutely nailed on now. This budget has been very poorly received and has probably lost the Red Wall for good

    You are right, but I thought you were predicting Con poll lead a couple of nights ago?
    To be fair I didn't know the Tories would announce this.

    They also aren't mutually exclusive, lag means could still see an Opinium lead.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,605

    MaxPB said:

    The two most recent experiences I've had are to the contrary. In the most recent case my grandad was offered treatment for brain cancer aged 89, he already had some amount of dementia unrelated to the brain cancer. It was only when my dad stepped in and forced the other siblings to refuse that the NHS didn't go ahead. The doctors were, by his account, in favour of going ahead as it would give him at least two more years. My dad's reaction was "two more years of what".

    The other case is an uncle who had Alzheimer's, he had it for 12 years and during those 12 years his life was saved by the NHS countless times, he was resuscitated at least twice and all because there was no LPA and he hadn't signed a DNR when he was capable. That was a while ago so I don't know if the provision has changed since then but it was instructive for my parents who have signed DNRs and given my sister and have LPAs in place with instructions to refuse treatment should they have dementia or something along those lines.

    Maybe things are different now but I was involved in the discussions with my grandad, two of the siblings wanted to go ahead, two didn't. At that stage the NHS would have had to given life lengthening care to someone who was in an expensive care home at the taxpayers expense with 0 quality of life. I hope that doesn't happen any more.

    I am sorry to read this Max but it reminds me of a similar situation only a couple of years old with my own relative. It would have cost a fortune for the NHS to keep her alive and she would have hated every minute of it. I am so glad she just went off peacefully. I am sure she would have chosen assisted dying over any more suffering.

    I hope otherwise you are staying well my friend. Miss interacting with you.
    I'm keeping fairly well, just got a pretty big tax cut so I should be happier than I am (today's budget has me in a pretty depressed mood over the future of the nation). Sleep deprived because Jen seems to want to wake up at 3am every night this week and won't go back to sleep until 6am.

    While I can't say I'm glad your relative died, I'm glad they didn't suffer needlessly by being kept alive in that state. I know my grandad would have refused the care, he'd previously refused treatment for bladder cancer until my aunt (hist daughter) guilted him into doing it only for him to get dementia a few months after recovering.

    Hope you're doing well too mate!
  • Hope you are doing well @IshmaelZ I know we have our differences but I do consider you a friend
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,782

    My fixed mortgage deal expires in February 2024 lol. :'(

    June '23 for me. I only went for two years in case we move to Australia. Better do now!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914
    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The question is stupid and utterly self defeating. It has been answered repeatedly. If you had your way we would have not made progress and settled for some arbitrary so called ‘natural’ limit years ago.
    Still no answers then. And those bygone eras are not comparable to today. That was an age where people were getting healthier and basic nutrition provided a huge boost to people's health and longevity. We're now at the other end of the scale where people's lifestyles are now a burden, especially in older age.

    Until recently there was never a time where a person with dementia would be kept alive and have their life lengthened for an unlimited period of time. That's what we're doing, keeping shells of people alive, for what no one really knows but they exist and cost the state billions that could be better spent on cancer care, stroke rehabilitation and plenty of other healthcare needs.

    We've arbitrarily decided that life quality doesn't matter if the patient is unable to say so and even in some cases where they have said so they are unable to be assisted in dying.
    You are suffering from a disease endemic across the West A deep pessimism and decline. It is utterly self defeating. Dementia is indeed a real problem today. But it won’t be forever. The solution is not euthanasia. We will make incremental improvements. In doing so we will no doubt create new unforeseen problems. But that is life.
    For me it's about consent. If somebody incapicitated or in great pain wants to die and needs help with it - and says so - that should be allowed. Without clear evidenced consent it's murder. I know it's not easy to codify this into law but that would be my governing principle.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,732
    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The question is stupid and utterly self defeating. It has been answered repeatedly. If you had your way we would have not made progress and settled for some arbitrary so called ‘natural’ limit years ago.
    Still no answers then. And those bygone eras are not comparable to today. That was an age where people were getting healthier and basic nutrition provided a huge boost to people's health and longevity. We're now at the other end of the scale where people's lifestyles are now a burden, especially in older age.

    Until recently there was never a time where a person with dementia would be kept alive and have their life lengthened for an unlimited period of time. That's what we're doing, keeping shells of people alive, for what no one really knows but they exist and cost the state billions that could be better spent on cancer care, stroke rehabilitation and plenty of other healthcare needs.

    We've arbitrarily decided that life quality doesn't matter if the patient is unable to say so and even in some cases where they have said so they are unable to be assisted in dying.
    That is not correct. We do not keep people alive when they have no quality of life. Sensitive discussion is needed with patients and relatives in order to set a treatment plan, and that may well be palliative care. I speak not just professionally, but also from personal experience. My mother in law died a year ago, with an explicit care plan to nurse her to a comfortable death after a major stroke on a background of moderate dementia.
    Maybe things are different now but I was involved in the discussions with my grandad, two of the siblings wanted to go ahead, two didn't. At that stage the NHS would have had to given life lengthening care to someone who was in an expensive care home at the taxpayers expense with 0 quality of life. I hope that doesn't happen any more.
    If the siblings are divided for and against treatment, and the patient not competent to consent, with no one with medical LPOA then the situation is difficult. The plan should be to convene a "Best Interests" meeting including all parties, family and professionals with an independent patient advocate if necessary. There is no presumption of consent in such cases.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,955
    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    The biggest change in the last thirty years is not the fall in owners and rise in renters, though that is significant: it is the related rise in outright-owners and fall in mortgage-carrying-owners. High interest rates will be brutal for a small concentrated part of society - mainly those in their 30s and 40s. Probably not good for fertility rates.

    More than half of homeowners now don’t have a mortgage, a record high.

    You cannot solve a housing crisis when the population of the country is rising so fast. No matter how fast you build homes it won't be enough. In the 70s and 80s the population was almost flat which meant it was easy to build enough homes.
    I'm not sure that's true: it is not impossible, just difficult.

    Look at the pace of building in some of the Sunbelt cities in the US, places like Phoenix and Las Vegas: these are places that have managed to quadruple in size in a couple of decades.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,782
    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    carnforth said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The question is stupid and utterly self defeating. It has been answered repeatedly. If you had your way we would have not made progress and settled for some arbitrary so called ‘natural’ limit years ago.
    Still no answers then. And those bygone eras are not comparable to today. That was an age where people were getting healthier and basic nutrition provided a huge boost to people's health and longevity. We're now at the other end of the scale where people's lifestyles are now a burden, especially in older age.

    Until recently there was never a time where a person with dementia would be kept alive and have their life lengthened for an unlimited period of time. That's what we're doing, keeping shells of people alive, for what no one really knows but they exist and cost the state billions that could be better spent on cancer care, stroke rehabilitation and plenty of other healthcare needs.

    We've arbitrarily decided that life quality doesn't matter if the patient is unable to say so and even in some cases where they have said so they are unable to be assisted in dying.
    That is not correct. We do not keep people alive when they have no quality of life. Sensitive discussion is needed with patients and relatives in order to set a treatment plan, and that may well be palliative care. I speak not just professionally, but also from personal experience. My mother in law died a year ago, with an explicit care plan to nurse her to a comfortable death after a major stroke on a background of moderate dementia.
    With all respect, that is not my experience at all

    Many friends and family report years of distressing dementia in old and close relatives
    Neither dementia nor distress are inevitable. Dying with a clear mind and after a lifetime of good health at the age of 96 is perfectly possible, indeed not even unusual for people who look after themselves.

    Big element of chance, presumably. My 97 year old grandmother is sharp as a tack, but spent her whole 80s looking after my late grandfather as he descended into Alzheimers. Neither drank much or smoked at all or were fat.
    To play Devil's (Leon's) advocate, look at the difference in LE between rich and poor parts of Glasgow.

    If you have a catastrophic heart attack age 60 after contributing to Scottish industry for 45 years, seems a shit deal compared with a Uni educated lawyer (35 years "service", retired early) who has their dementia care paid for by the NHS for 15 years.
    Having your dementia care paid for is not the greatest treat, though. It is quite wrong to think that demented feels like pleasantly drunk, it comes with big helpings of paranoia and anger and misery.
    Good point. It's lazy to focus just on the spending, not the reason for it.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 2,822
    edited September 2022
    PeterM said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The question is stupid and utterly self defeating. It has been answered repeatedly. If you had your way we would have not made progress and settled for some arbitrary so called ‘natural’ limit years ago.
    Still no answers then. And those bygone eras are not comparable to today. That was an age where people were getting healthier and basic nutrition provided a huge boost to people's health and longevity. We're now at the other end of the scale where people's lifestyles are now a burden, especially in older age.

    Until recently there was never a time where a person with dementia would be kept alive and have their life lengthened for an unlimited period of time. That's what we're doing, keeping shells of people alive, for what no one really knows but they exist and cost the state billions that could be better spent on cancer care, stroke rehabilitation and plenty of other healthcare needs.

    We've arbitrarily decided that life quality doesn't matter if the patient is unable to say so and even in some cases where they have said so they are unable to be assisted in dying.
    Dementia also wrecks the lives of those around the afflicted person. The alternatives are care for a shell of a person who will steadily deteriorate or pay for expensive long term care
    This is a bit close to home for me.

    My mother in law has dementia.

    Some days she just sits there saying "I want to be dead" - when she's not asking who she is - but she is deemed to have no agency.

    She can't really be looked after properly in a care facility. Most of them can't cope as she's still quite mobile physically. Hence, as I suspect happens in a significant proportion of cases, it is family that sits at the bottom of the pyramid scheme. 30 months without a whole day off so far...

    About 10 years ago (pre dementia) she contracted cancer and was treated (and apparently cured) of it by the NHS. Did doing that actually help anyone? I do wonder sometimes. [She is 89, by the way]

    I hope we eventually find a cure for this, otherwise we'll get to the point where just about everything else is treatable and a large proportion of the population has their life prolonged to the point where they can't remember any of it.
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    The two most recent experiences I've had are to the contrary. In the most recent case my grandad was offered treatment for brain cancer aged 89, he already had some amount of dementia unrelated to the brain cancer. It was only when my dad stepped in and forced the other siblings to refuse that the NHS didn't go ahead. The doctors were, by his account, in favour of going ahead as it would give him at least two more years. My dad's reaction was "two more years of what".

    The other case is an uncle who had Alzheimer's, he had it for 12 years and during those 12 years his life was saved by the NHS countless times, he was resuscitated at least twice and all because there was no LPA and he hadn't signed a DNR when he was capable. That was a while ago so I don't know if the provision has changed since then but it was instructive for my parents who have signed DNRs and given my sister and have LPAs in place with instructions to refuse treatment should they have dementia or something along those lines.

    Maybe things are different now but I was involved in the discussions with my grandad, two of the siblings wanted to go ahead, two didn't. At that stage the NHS would have had to given life lengthening care to someone who was in an expensive care home at the taxpayers expense with 0 quality of life. I hope that doesn't happen any more.

    I am sorry to read this Max but it reminds me of a similar situation only a couple of years old with my own relative. It would have cost a fortune for the NHS to keep her alive and she would have hated every minute of it. I am so glad she just went off peacefully. I am sure she would have chosen assisted dying over any more suffering.

    I hope otherwise you are staying well my friend. Miss interacting with you.
    I'm keeping fairly well, just got a pretty big tax cut so I should be happier than I am (today's budget has me in a pretty depressed mood over the future of the nation). Sleep deprived because Jen seems to want to wake up at 3am every night this week and won't go back to sleep until 6am.

    While I can't say I'm glad your relative died, I'm glad they didn't suffer needlessly by being kept alive in that state. I know my grandad would have refused the care, he'd previously refused treatment for bladder cancer until my aunt (hist daughter) guilted him into doing it only for him to get dementia a few months after recovering.

    Hope you're doing well too mate!
    I am assuming Jen is your baby girl rather than an AI robot :) I hope she is doing well, I am sure you're a terrific father.

    I benefit well from the tax cut too - software engineering seems very happy about it in general - but also concerned about where we are going. I think we agree on quite a lot all told.

    I can say it, I am glad she died rather than going through that! And she would agree I am sure. Another relative also had contracted dementia before she passed, just the worst thing ever. I am glad it did not stay with her long, just awful. If I contract it I will certainly seek out assisted dying. I would hope by then it might be legal.

    I am alright mate, very busy as is startup life, have had some interest from Big Tech I wonder if I should switch with the economy in the loo
  • Eabhal said:

    My fixed mortgage deal expires in February 2024 lol. :'(

    June '23 for me. I only went for two years in case we move to Australia. Better do now!
    So glad we got a five year fixed
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    The biggest change in the last thirty years is not the fall in owners and rise in renters, though that is significant: it is the related rise in outright-owners and fall in mortgage-carrying-owners. High interest rates will be brutal for a small concentrated part of society - mainly those in their 30s and 40s. Probably not good for fertility rates.

    More than half of homeowners now don’t have a mortgage, a record high.

    You cannot solve a housing crisis when the population of the country is rising so fast. No matter how fast you build homes it won't be enough. In the 70s and 80s the population was almost flat which meant it was easy to build enough homes.
    I'm not sure that's true: it is not impossible, just difficult.

    Look at the pace of building in some of the Sunbelt cities in the US, places like Phoenix and Las Vegas: these are places that have managed to quadruple in size in a couple of decades.
    Look at the amount of desert available to build on in AZ and NV. Also how are these places fixed for long term drinking water security?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,918
    My father has advanced dementia. He lives in a home. He rarely speaks. Life is hard, but it is a life with moments of love and joy. And today he is weirdly better now than he was six months ago. I will pop over tomorrow and give him a hug, make him smile and sit with him in front of James Bond.

    There have been moments when of course you question it all, but I think I would take this over my mother’s somewhat early and abrupt death due to AML cancer.

    The closest I’ve seen to euthanasia is suicide. I’ve seen enough of that to know it’s not the way. We need to do more to save people from that.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,605
    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The question is stupid and utterly self defeating. It has been answered repeatedly. If you had your way we would have not made progress and settled for some arbitrary so called ‘natural’ limit years ago.
    Still no answers then. And those bygone eras are not comparable to today. That was an age where people were getting healthier and basic nutrition provided a huge boost to people's health and longevity. We're now at the other end of the scale where people's lifestyles are now a burden, especially in older age.

    Until recently there was never a time where a person with dementia would be kept alive and have their life lengthened for an unlimited period of time. That's what we're doing, keeping shells of people alive, for what no one really knows but they exist and cost the state billions that could be better spent on cancer care, stroke rehabilitation and plenty of other healthcare needs.

    We've arbitrarily decided that life quality doesn't matter if the patient is unable to say so and even in some cases where they have said so they are unable to be assisted in dying.
    That is not correct. We do not keep people alive when they have no quality of life. Sensitive discussion is needed with patients and relatives in order to set a treatment plan, and that may well be palliative care. I speak not just professionally, but also from personal experience. My mother in law died a year ago, with an explicit care plan to nurse her to a comfortable death after a major stroke on a background of moderate dementia.
    Maybe things are different now but I was involved in the discussions with my grandad, two of the siblings wanted to go ahead, two didn't. At that stage the NHS would have had to given life lengthening care to someone who was in an expensive care home at the taxpayers expense with 0 quality of life. I hope that doesn't happen any more.
    If the siblings are divided for and against treatment, and the patient not competent to consent, with no one with medical LPOA then the situation is difficult. The plan should be to convene a "Best Interests" meeting including all parties, family and professionals with an independent patient advocate if necessary. There is no presumption of consent in such cases.

    We had that meeting internally in the family where my aunt was basically told by my mum that if she pushed ahead then she'd have to take over all extra care duties and visits (my mum and dad had been doing it basically without any help from the rest of them for 4 years) suddenly she changed her tune and was in favour of no treatment. The whole affair brought a lot of recriminations within the family, my mum and my aunt still barely talk to each other. 🤷‍♂️
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,955
    As an aside, @MaxPB made an astute comment on the unwelcome rise of a rentier class, as landlords outbid owner occupiers for properties.

    My supposition is that this is the consequence of a tax system which (even today) allows landlords to offset interest expense against income, while owner occupiers cannot.

    And I think we need to blame Nigel Lawson for this one: he kicked off the abolition of MIRAS, and he introduced a number of other tax measures to encourage landlords. (He discusses this in The View From Number Eleven.)

    What is now clear is that he missed the consequence: a landlord can always outbid an occupier, and therefore an ever greater share of the housing stock will end up rented.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Hope you are doing well @IshmaelZ I know we have our differences but I do consider you a friend

    And the same to you!

    I am very well, just been to a Seth Lakeman gig and now drinking Pinot Noir, so all is good.
  • Jonathan said:

    My father has advanced dementia. He lives in a home. He rarely speaks. Life is hard, but it is a life with moments of love and joy. And today he is weirdly better now than he was six months ago. I will pop over tomorrow and give him a hug, make him smile and sit with him in front of James Bond.

    There have been moments when of course you question it all, but I think I would take this over my mother’s somewhat early and abrupt death due to AML cancer.

    The closest I’ve seen to euthanasia is suicide. I’ve seen enough of that to know it’s not the way. We need to do more to save people from that.

    This is such a lovely post, I am sure your father on his good days appreciates your company greatly. I recall a similar thing for my relative, when my Mum went to visit how lifted up she was. It can make all the difference.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,955
    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, @MaxPB made an astute comment on the unwelcome rise of a rentier class, as landlords outbid owner occupiers for properties.

    My supposition is that this is the consequence of a tax system which (even today) allows landlords to offset interest expense against income, while owner occupiers cannot.

    And I think we need to blame Nigel Lawson for this one: he kicked off the abolition of MIRAS, and he introduced a number of other tax measures to encourage landlords. (He discusses this in The View From Number Eleven.)

    What is now clear is that he missed the consequence: a landlord can always outbid an occupier, and therefore an ever greater share of the housing stock will end up rented.

    Bringing back MIRAS would - effectively - subsidize the young and those at the start of their careers over the old, whose mortgages are mostly paid off.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Hope you are doing well @IshmaelZ I know we have our differences but I do consider you a friend

    And the same to you!

    I am very well, just been to a Seth Lakeman gig and now drinking Pinot Noir, so all is good.
    Drinking buddy waheyyyy
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The question is stupid and utterly self defeating. It has been answered repeatedly. If you had your way we would have not made progress and settled for some arbitrary so called ‘natural’ limit years ago.
    Still no answers then. And those bygone eras are not comparable to today. That was an age where people were getting healthier and basic nutrition provided a huge boost to people's health and longevity. We're now at the other end of the scale where people's lifestyles are now a burden, especially in older age.

    Until recently there was never a time where a person with dementia would be kept alive and have their life lengthened for an unlimited period of time. That's what we're doing, keeping shells of people alive, for what no one really knows but they exist and cost the state billions that could be better spent on cancer care, stroke rehabilitation and plenty of other healthcare needs.

    We've arbitrarily decided that life quality doesn't matter if the patient is unable to say so and even in some cases where they have said so they are unable to be assisted in dying.
    That is not correct. We do not keep people alive when they have no quality of life. Sensitive discussion is needed with patients and relatives in order to set a treatment plan, and that may well be palliative care. I speak not just professionally, but also from personal experience. My mother in law died a year ago, with an explicit care plan to nurse her to a comfortable death after a major stroke on a background of moderate dementia.
    With all respect, that is not my experience at all

    Many friends and family report years of distressing dementia in old and close relatives
    Neither dementia nor distress are inevitable. Dying with a clear mind and after a lifetime of good health at the age of 96 is perfectly possible, indeed not even unusual for people who look after themselves.

    Odds of dementia by 90 is 40%. Not great.
    I surprised how good those odds are. That’s today. Give it 10-20 years and it will be more like 20%. Let’s not give up. Perhaps our children or their children will look forward to long dementia free lives.

    I would much, much rather be dead than faced with a 1 in 10 or higher chance of dementia.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,732
    carnforth said:

    Eabhal said:

    carnforth said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The question is stupid and utterly self defeating. It has been answered repeatedly. If you had your way we would have not made progress and settled for some arbitrary so called ‘natural’ limit years ago.
    Still no answers then. And those bygone eras are not comparable to today. That was an age where people were getting healthier and basic nutrition provided a huge boost to people's health and longevity. We're now at the other end of the scale where people's lifestyles are now a burden, especially in older age.

    Until recently there was never a time where a person with dementia would be kept alive and have their life lengthened for an unlimited period of time. That's what we're doing, keeping shells of people alive, for what no one really knows but they exist and cost the state billions that could be better spent on cancer care, stroke rehabilitation and plenty of other healthcare needs.

    We've arbitrarily decided that life quality doesn't matter if the patient is unable to say so and even in some cases where they have said so they are unable to be assisted in dying.
    That is not correct. We do not keep people alive when they have no quality of life. Sensitive discussion is needed with patients and relatives in order to set a treatment plan, and that may well be palliative care. I speak not just professionally, but also from personal experience. My mother in law died a year ago, with an explicit care plan to nurse her to a comfortable death after a major stroke on a background of moderate dementia.
    With all respect, that is not my experience at all

    Many friends and family report years of distressing dementia in old and close relatives
    Neither dementia nor distress are inevitable. Dying with a clear mind and after a lifetime of good health at the age of 96 is perfectly possible, indeed not even unusual for people who look after themselves.

    Big element of chance, presumably. My 97 year old grandmother is sharp as a tack, but spent her whole 80s looking after my late grandfather as he descended into Alzheimers. Neither drank much or smoked at all or were fat.
    To play Devil's (Leon's) advocate, look at the difference in LE between rich and poor parts of Glasgow.

    If you have a catastrophic heart attack age 60 after contributing to Scottish industry for 45 years, seems a shit deal compared with a Uni educated lawyer who has their dementia care paid for by the NHS for 15 years.
    Possibly. But if you’ve seen someone with severe dementia, you can’t help thinking the heart attack at 60 might have been kinder. Nancy reagan replaced Ronald’s TV with a black and white one because the colours scared him.
    It is the wrong way round though. Not only do the rich live longer, their last years are healthier. The healthy life expectancy difference is more marked than regular life expectancy. That 60 year old Glaswegian will have been dogged with ill health for years beforehand.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914

    Some of the right on here seem a bit Janus-faced. On the one hand, they tell us that the UK is the greatest country on earth, one of the largest economies, and a centre of science and innovation. I don't disagree.

    But n the other hand, they tell us that we can't afford to ensure that people live long, fulfilling and dignified lives, even when they stop working.

    Which is it? If we're that great, and prosperous (which we are), surely we have the resources to ensure our people live happily to the end of their lives?

    And one of them is always telling us about the coming "AI" productivity revolution!
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,460
    Jonathan said:

    My father has advanced dementia. He lives in a home. He rarely speaks. Life is hard, but it is a life with moments of love and joy. And today he is weirdly better now than he was six months ago. I will pop over tomorrow and give him a hug, make him smile and sit with him in front of James Bond.

    There have been moments when of course you question it all, but I think I would take this over my mother’s somewhat early and abrupt death due to AML cancer.

    The closest I’ve seen to euthanasia is suicide. I’ve seen enough of that to know it’s not the way. We need to do more to save people from that.

    Sometimes the earlier stages can be worse than the latter. My grandfather was very angry and frustrated whilst he knew he had dementia. Wouldn’t let anyone help. Once he didn’t know any more, he was calmer. Still awful though.

    What sticks in my mind is the turning points: the moment we had to take his car keys away, the moment we told him he was going to a hotel but we were actually putting him in a home.
  • I don't want to say why I know this because it is quite personal but we talk about the ability of humans and just look at survival rates of leukaemia.

    In the 70s it was somewhere around 40% in children. Now it's 90%. What an improvement, look at what we have achieved together.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491

    There have been some diabolical assessments of the Ukraine conflict but this has to go down as one of the worst ones:

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/holding-ground-losing-war/

    The sudden mention of the Russian mobilisation in the middle of that stands out like a sore thumb, since based on what the Kremlin is claiming about how many it has killed, and how few men it has lost, there would appear to be no need whatsoever for more forces.

    It also offers no answer for why if the the Russians are 'nothing if not methodical and deliberate' it engaged in rapid assaults on a wider area it has now, to some degree at least, had to withdraw from.

    But that's the least of it frankly. I'm not one to simply believe optimistic Ukrainian claims at face value, but that is really something else as far as eating out of Moscow's hand.

    Relatedly

    In response to the Russian MoD's briefing that stated the 89th Ukrainian Su-25 aircraft was shot down, a Russian Telegram channel sarcastically says that Ukraine must have a secret underground repair facility since Ukraine reportedly had fewer than 50 when the war began.


    https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1573317714420064256?cxt=HHwWgICz7YOIxtUrAAAA
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,955
    I'm off to a Sabaton concert this evening.

    Wish me luck.
This discussion has been closed.