Categories
The NHS isn’t working – politicalbetting.com
The NHS isn’t working – politicalbetting.com
Keir Starmer has said the NHS is "broken" – a view many Britons may share, as 63% say NHS services nationally are "bad"https://t.co/JRjyDk1vsf pic.twitter.com/kA43SojJaQ
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://twitter.com/ShaunLintern/status/1648724433035567104?t=TWwTWxr9PEkZ-lOZUEwmoA&s=19
With stories like this it's small bleeding wonder things are in a mess.
Bad enough there aren't enough training places, worse that we can't even employ the ones we do train!
HEE (and its devolved equivalents) is a nightmare. Sorting it out would massively help Junior Doctors in their careers, improve retention and tackle backlogs.
Just read the comments by Juniors under this rather smug HEE tweet:
https://twitter.com/NHSE_WTE/status/1640740143572176897?t=Z8dAeaGgPb-DY4L3KnRIHg&s=19
For me it's a civil liberties issue. Why should the vendor know who I am when I buy something? A whiff of the officious and a step towards dystopia I think.
If only because of the lack of anaesthetists...
An example. We have a chinese takeaway in the village who studiously refuse to get a card reader. The nearest cash machine is 5 miles away in the next village. So if we want to use them it takes planning. Because having ended up with notes sat in a wallet for literal months we just don't get cash out regularly any more - it is by exception.
Cash won't disappear and I don't want it to. But its utility is shrinking rapidly. When you understand that fiat money is a computer-created fiction anyway it seems archaic creating these tokens to represent something which is entirely digital.
Calling a "lefty Lawyer" "Sir Softie" would appear to garner more Tory votes according to the PB glitterati than resolving the NHS crisis. So as you were.
"Sir Softie"? Genius!
With fewer and fewer bank branches open the average business now has to travel over 20 miles to their nearest branch.
With cards, just tap the PDQ machine at close of business and the money is in your account the next working day.
Couldn't we talk about something relatively uncontroversial like how great a race director Michael Masi was?
That won't possibly be a way to fix the NHS, which is far worse than simply "broken". How many people are stupid enough to allow such reassurance to take their minds off the real health problems they experience in their lives and the fact that the shitty state health service isn't fixing them?
Okay, the answer may be a lot, or at least a lot of swing voters. No-one ever lost money, etc. I doubt it, though.
No political party will ever call it as it is about the NHS.
It is a pretty dysfunctional system at the moment, with the government at war with the staff needed to solve the situation.
Certainly money will help, but there are many other things that could be done to improve efficiency and productivity that are minimal cost, or indeed net savings. Sorting out HEE as below for example.
I am starting to think the real problem is the Civil Service.
I know from first hand experience the waiting times, certainly for the Doctor my colleague needs to have a basic knee replacement, is in months. She is having to wait several months for a knee replacement privately.
Anecdotal, of course, but they are saying this is a consequence of less availability in the NHS.
Which reminds me, what do dildos and soya beans have in common?
Both get used as a substitute for meat.
And what is the response to Anna Turley posting the private eye expose? That's right - Corbynite shills attacking her!
https://twitter.com/annaturley/status/1648663585260810241
In fact, I'm amused that you wrote that post in such a manner. The people who primarily be using cash are the people I'd expect you to care about, and be concerned about, the most.
Bit presumptive to describe who I am concerned about. My dad is about as tech-phobic as you can get. He is a classic cash nostalgia person, but even he now does online shopping. Took some doing but they can now do a shop without having to physically go. For someone who was adamant that he'd get robbed online its real progress.
Is caring for my parents enabling them to be able to have shopping delivered? Or pandering to his cash is king nostalgia so they can't...?
The NHS was not set up to do such things, and if we want it, and for those who need it, such as my dad, it’s life changing. But we shouldn’t forget that it all costs money.
No party wins general elections by saying they will put up tax to pay for the NHS. We are a nation of hypocrites, that lie to pollsters and then in the moment in the polling booth we think of ourselves, not the greater good.
We would be better as a society with far greater health insurance and an NHS that did the basics. Need a new hip? Your health insurance is what that’s for.
NI is just a component of general taxation now. Time to get individual health insurance.
The key group who use and need cash are small businesses and their customers in poorer areas. Where margins are tight, the high fees charged for card machines and card transactions are literally the difference between solvency and closure. Although there are fees for banking in cash, they are (a) somewhat lower and (b) it's in your power to vary them by deciding how much cash you do and don't bank. You don't have that power with cards.
Banks and their apologists claim it is cheaper to use cards, but this is simply not true. It is cheaper for (1) people who pay large amounts every time, so it's a smaller percentage of the overall take and (2) large corporations including banks, who are deliberately running down their branch network to increase their profits and therefore want us all to pay by card.
Now I can understand why in London or Manchester, dominated by the big corps and with a high (extortionate, truthfully) cost of living, that means cash is no longer important.
That does not mean it is the case everywhere. Outside of major cities and tourist honeypots, where you can still get a decent meal for a fiver, insisting on card only would mean some businesses paying near 20% of turnover in card fees, instead of around 5% for cash banking fees. Which seems to me utterly unfair, ridiculous and in itself pretty well criminal.
And while I have no objection to people using cards to pay (I do it myself an awful lot) I cannot understand the mentality of people who say 'I find cash inconvenient in my particular circumstances, therefore everyone who uses it must be a criminal or a moron.' Which we see one particularly weird example of on this board.
If that person doesn't like that, that's his problem. But he should understand that his is playing the games of big businesses against ordinary people, out of selfishness.
Along with everything else.
Utterly pathetic from Sunak at PMQs.
the waiting list for a hip / knee operation on the NHS is years which is why the demand for private ones is now so high...
I notice we are still talking of cash and as a pensioner maybe it would be expected that I use cash but to be honest I only do so with the hairdresser to give her a tip, and just carry lose change for parking etc
Indeed I recently paid 90pence by my card but there is real concern, especially from the elderly, over the need to use an app for parking fees
I do believe we should consider those in society who struggle with technology and want to use cash but certainly I do object to any business who demands cash only which should be outlawed
We can only talk about 'outlawing' practices if they are not going to put serious and totally unnecessary additional costs on the business as a result.
Anyway, I suggest we leave this. It grew out of Anabobazina's decision to criticise somebody for not paying for a bus by smartphone in 2005. I don't see why we should pander (to link to my other pun) to his obsessions on the subject, particularly when it generates so much more heat than light.
Edit - incidentally I think the 1.75% is a fee to use the machine separate from bank fees, which is what I was referring to.
No one has changed their position.
Can we give it a rest ?
I forget who it is my mother sees, perhaps hairdresser, who has a card reader but much prefers cash for cost reasons.
It's insane to try and outlaw or drive out cash.
Simply being able to tap a card reader is much better - fine for service providers to offer an app service for added benefits (parking reminders etc) but a tap and go ability should be mandatory.
My dad would refuse to even do tap and go as he doesn't get a card receipt. Which he keeps. And crosses off against the card statement every month to ensure he hasn't been ripped off...
Until the NHS stops being a political football, it will continue to spiral the plughole.
Of course, Rishi could propose this too.
But I fear that explaining the actions of the government is beyond even us.
(If I had to guess, it's an obsession with Protecting The Frontline, which you can only get away with for a few years before holes in the back office cause trouble.)
It's just that the whole cash debate is particularly pointless, and not in the least bit entertaining either.
It would talk bollocks of course, but sound vaguely plausible doing so.
The NHS is a 1940s statist solution which has survived into the 2020s and which reminds oddly me of a VHS machine an elderly relative of mine insists on using to this day - clunky, unreliable and a nightmare when it goes wrong, but most of the time just about gets the job done.
Also there's the legacy of the COVID disaster.
Given all these problems, it is amazing that it works as well as it does.
I suppose we could Stone him
Not least because many people actually like the idea of a Softie government rather than one of toxic machismo.
Mind you, he never does any actual work so I suppose it's a lucrative form of pension for him.
It is that spirit of wanting to resolve an unresolvable problem that is needed in our NHS and until it happens the NHS will continue in crisis across the country and devolved powers ad infinitum
‘Twas, ever thus with the NHS, I suggest that what are the problems is that it is continually debated over by middle-aged men, a group of people who use it least. The involvement of more women in the debate has been a good thing, but it might be good to have more involvement of the elderly.
Anyway, can you place these in time-line order please?
a) the "attack ad"
b) Sir Softie
c) Sir Keir Savile slur.
Rishi Sunak doesn't...
Why would anyone be confused about that?
It will have been polled and focus-grouped by Levido first.
That means they're confident it will resonate.
Great post from HYUFD by the way, pinpointing the anomaly.
One student was literally open mouthed all the way through at how cynical every reform bill was - solely for partisan advantage. 1832 to entrench the Whig win of 1830 and ride the wave of fervour, 1867 to control redistribution of seats, 1884-85 as a grubby deal that gave Liberals voters and Tories seats. 1918 to get supporters of the government that won the war to vote.
Some things never change...