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

1456810

Comments

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,631
    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!

    Penance? Isn't that a feature of Popery?

    You'll be expelled from the Orange Lodge for that kind of talk!

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,453

    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?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,916
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy 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.
    It means the people most likely to need insurance cannot afford it, so we are supposed to let them die on the hospital doorstep.

    Welcome to the world of libertarianism.
    Far better to encourage the rich to take out private insurance so the NHS focuses on those who need it most
    Private insurance won't cover maternity, psychiatry, or even long term conditions.

    Better to save the premiums into a savings account that you can spend as you choose and remain in control of the money. As
    I proposed in my first PB header, which I think has aged well.

    https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/07/01/three-score-and-ten-has-the-nhs-reached-the-end-of-its-natural-life/

    It will cover most healthcare, you can have top up savings for the rest
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,917
    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
    WE bow down to your superior expertise of life outside, and indeed inside, the Louden Tavern.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,453
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy 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.
    It means the people most likely to need insurance cannot afford it, so we are supposed to let them die on the hospital doorstep.

    Welcome to the world of libertarianism.
    Far better to encourage the rich to take out private insurance so the NHS focuses on those who need it most
    Private insurance won't cover maternity, psychiatry, or even long term conditions.

    Better to save the premiums into a savings account that you can spend as you choose and remain in control of the money. As
    I proposed in my first PB header, which I think has aged well.

    https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/07/01/three-score-and-ten-has-the-nhs-reached-the-end-of-its-natural-life/

    It will cover most healthcare, you can have top up savings for the rest
    No, it really won't!
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,412

    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

    Sympathies.

    It would be interesting to know how much the NHS etc spend on keeping sick oldies alive for a few more weeks of low quality life.
    My estimate is probably 20k a year for the last 2 years and its probably 4 years since he disappeared from being the man we know
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,318
    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?
    She had a head shot. They put it on the stamps!
  • Jonathan said:

    So if we had a reset button, which could take the country back to date in the past 30 years we would all press it. We perhaps would not agree on the date we went back to, but we would all press it.

    Things are worse today than they were yesterday. That's a serious political problem that someone needs to fix.

    I would press it and it would take me back to 2016. If I had the chance I would not have voted Brexit in 2016. My mistake, probably the biggest I've made in my life.

    The prospects for this country are looking very bleak.

    Brexit takes us through the reasonably sane governance of Cameron, to the slowly losing connection with reality May, to the flatulent Boris, the tragi-comedy of Boris Mk II, and now the pencils-in-your-nose full on madness of Truss and parody-man Rees-Mogg.

    We could really do with an election right now. Sir Keir, you are our only hope.
    You've clearly not yet had the epiphany moment where you realise that the parlous state of the economy now is due precisely to the wasted years under the so-called 'reasonably sane governance' which you look back on with such affection. Our shit energy security happened then. Money flooded out of the country and shit got sold off willy nilly then. We gold-plated every bit of European drivel then. You can't run a country down like that then, without what we're dealing with now.
    Nah. We had people who believed in reality / evidence / the modern world running us.

    Now we've got Rees-Mogg.
    That's meaningless. You must realise that. This situation developed over decades. It wouldn't matter if the Cameronites were still in power - it wouldn't even matter if we were still in the EU (we'd just have less options as to what to do about it). Sell off, rip off, don't give a shit Britain is Cameron and Osborne's Britain.
    No the Cameronites were correlated with reasonably good governance. We are a middling power with huge structural problems - a long-tail of very poorly educated individuals, terrible demographics in terms of health, a welfare system that is totally dysfunctional and creates dysfunctional people, an older class of individuals who are hateful towards the young with their voting behaviour and the way they influence policy.

    The Labour party had found a model for the UK that was roughly working, Cameron continued it. Then Brexit. The rest will be history, bad history.

    No decent thinkers, particularly from the right, can try and fix the problem because Brexit is a big part of the problem. So the lunatics come in and things like fracking, as an example, gets put up as a serious solution to one of the problems we are facing. I appreciate, that excites you, but in the nicest possible way, if you are excited about something, it's probably because we are going in the wrong direction.
    Aww, bless you. You're a poor reasoner, and this post, like remainerism itself, tries to gussy up as logic what is actually performative identification with an 'insider' identity that you aspire to. Statements like 'hateful towards the young in their voting behaviour' and designations like 'lunatic' don't come from a logical and well-ordered mind.

    Cameron's Governments, like Blair/Brown's before them, oversaw a massive cheap sell off of the UK's assets, a structural BOP deficit, an undermining of domestically-produced energy in favour of imported gas and interconnectors, making us dependent on the continent for power, an economy totally dependent on financial services for revenue. They introduced deathwatch beetle into the roof whilst the sun was shining. Take a look under the hood of any issue that we have now, and it starts then.
    I'm getting the vibe that you are properly into Peter Hitchens aren't you?

    What is a 'well-ordered' mind?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 13,905
    Scott_xP said:

    Bank of England urged to call emergency rates meeting next week to rescue pound

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/09/23/mini-budget-stamp-duty-tax-cuts-ni-truss-kwarteng-ftse-100/

    One aspect of this budget which mirrors Greece is the fiscal policy of the government in contradiction with the monetary policy of the Central Bank. In the UK's case, the government can simply abolish the BoEs independence and tell it to print money, while in Greece's case the CB was in another country.

    Another Greek thing is the undermining of the tax base.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,147
    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.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,917

    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!

    Penance? Isn't that a feature of Popery?

    You'll be expelled from the Orange Lodge for that kind of talk!

    Nah, the C of E is a catholic kirk too.

    https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/common-worship/daily-prayer/forms-penitence
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,493

    Our analysts have written their analysis on the special fiscal operation, their précis.

    Great for anybody earning above £150k and terrible for the country.

    We're likely to have something to rival Black Wednesday soon.

    If we get the post-Black Wednesday economy, we can all be very happy.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,565

    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?
    Fuck the old c*nts. The young need to rebel. Up to year 80 the NHS will give you the best healthcare possible. After that, you're on your own. You've had three scores years and ten PLUS TEN. What more do you want? You make private provision, or you are given a shitload of cheap lethal opiates, bye bye oldtimer

    I honestly believe we will soon face choices as stark as this. The ageing of humanity cannot be managed otherwise (unless AI or the aliens save us)

    What is this clinging on to life crap anyhow. It is pathetic. 80 is a really good age. Now fuck off
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,917
    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.
    HmtQ relied on the NHS?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,537
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Our analysts have written their analysis on the special fiscal operation, their précis.

    Great for anybody earning above £150k and terrible for the country.

    We're likely to have something to rival Black Wednesday soon.

    Yes, that about sums up ours too. A tiny proportion of the nation will benefit, everyone else will face higher inflation due to sterling tanking and higher real interest rates because the benchmark rates (5y and 10y gilts) have gone up significantly.

    The BoE will need a 100 point raise in rates in the coming week just to support sterling and stave off short term import inflation.
    It's tragic, you and I are both going to benefit from today's changes, and what are we likely to do with it?

    Invest it, save it for our kids and our retirement which isn't going to boost the economy.
    Investing it does help the economy.
    Not really. Unless it's in a very high risk fund it will largely just attract dividend income rather than capital growth.
    Ok but that’s a different problem.
    The government - as you’ve posted already - has missed the opportunity to address business investment issues.

    But in isolation, “investment” is not a bad thing.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,538
    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?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,493

    Jonathan said:

    So if we had a reset button, which could take the country back to date in the past 30 years we would all press it. We perhaps would not agree on the date we went back to, but we would all press it.

    Things are worse today than they were yesterday. That's a serious political problem that someone needs to fix.

    I would press it and it would take me back to 2016. If I had the chance I would not have voted Brexit in 2016. My mistake, probably the biggest I've made in my life.

    The prospects for this country are looking very bleak.

    Brexit takes us through the reasonably sane governance of Cameron, to the slowly losing connection with reality May, to the flatulent Boris, the tragi-comedy of Boris Mk II, and now the pencils-in-your-nose full on madness of Truss and parody-man Rees-Mogg.

    We could really do with an election right now. Sir Keir, you are our only hope.
    You've clearly not yet had the epiphany moment where you realise that the parlous state of the economy now is due precisely to the wasted years under the so-called 'reasonably sane governance' which you look back on with such affection. Our shit energy security happened then. Money flooded out of the country and shit got sold off willy nilly then. We gold-plated every bit of European drivel then. You can't run a country down like that then, without what we're dealing with now.
    Nah. We had people who believed in reality / evidence / the modern world running us.

    Now we've got Rees-Mogg.
    That's meaningless. You must realise that. This situation developed over decades. It wouldn't matter if the Cameronites were still in power - it wouldn't even matter if we were still in the EU (we'd just have less options as to what to do about it). Sell off, rip off, don't give a shit Britain is Cameron and Osborne's Britain.
    No the Cameronites were correlated with reasonably good governance. We are a middling power with huge structural problems - a long-tail of very poorly educated individuals, terrible demographics in terms of health, a welfare system that is totally dysfunctional and creates dysfunctional people, an older class of individuals who are hateful towards the young with their voting behaviour and the way they influence policy.

    The Labour party had found a model for the UK that was roughly working, Cameron continued it. Then Brexit. The rest will be history, bad history.

    No decent thinkers, particularly from the right, can try and fix the problem because Brexit is a big part of the problem. So the lunatics come in and things like fracking, as an example, gets put up as a serious solution to one of the problems we are facing. I appreciate, that excites you, but in the nicest possible way, if you are excited about something, it's probably because we are going in the wrong direction.
    Aww, bless you. You're a poor reasoner, and this post, like remainerism itself, tries to gussy up as logic what is actually performative identification with an 'insider' identity that you aspire to. Statements like 'hateful towards the young in their voting behaviour' and designations like 'lunatic' don't come from a logical and well-ordered mind.

    Cameron's Governments, like Blair/Brown's before them, oversaw a massive cheap sell off of the UK's assets, a structural BOP deficit, an undermining of domestically-produced energy in favour of imported gas and interconnectors, making us dependent on the continent for power, an economy totally dependent on financial services for revenue. They introduced deathwatch beetle into the roof whilst the sun was shining. Take a look under the hood of any issue that we have now, and it starts then.
    What is a 'well-ordered' mind?
    Well, quite.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,412
    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.
    Agreed because too often they are keeping them alive despite the fact they don't really have a life like my father
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,147
    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.
  • 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.
  • Policy idea - a rental cap for legacy properties owned by foreign investors/companies, but no cap for newly built properties. Suspect this would be very popular, encourage foreign investors to build new properties instead of buying existing ones, and help to cool down our crisis-ridden housing market
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 19,944
    edited September 23
    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Does anyone know what the voting hours will be in Italy?

    Polls close at 10pm UK time on Sunday, 11pm Italian time. Truss I am sure will be hoping for a Meloni win to give her an ally at the G7
    Thank you. Interesting that Meloni and Berlusconi disagree on Russia/Ukraine.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,453
    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

    Sympathies.

    It would be interesting to know how much the NHS etc spend on keeping sick oldies alive for a few more weeks of low quality life.
    My estimate is probably 20k a year for the last 2 years and its probably 4 years since he disappeared from being the man we know
    If you had LPOA for medical decisions then you could ensure he was not medically treated inappropriately. It is best to anticipate on these things as they take time.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,538
    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.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,917
    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
    https://twitter.com/theloudentavern/status/894970616025108480

    Colour scheme remind you of something?
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 3,815
    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.

    The exact yardage and rules are important and the exact list of how many got in everywhere on each admission criteria are worth going into the microscopic detail of. I have a nascent list already for my 6 year old of what schools she'd have got in or not in each admission round - you can go back 2-3 years and make a list of 'what you would have got in' - then if the 11+ doesn't come through, if you can find 3 schools that you could have a chance of getting in, even if one is your least disfavoured "bad*" school, you can play the probabilities a bit.

    My first son's admission went badly, for years the school buses to our favoured school ran well to the other side of our house, but as other schools failed more, the last admission distance moved in and in, and by year 5, with son in one of the pyramid schools, we hadn't noticed and we missed by 80mtrs.

    He went to the least disfavoured bad school for a while, then got into a good school that was fed by a middle system and admitted at 13.

    High deprivation schools are not quite what you think - bad bullying was far more common at the good school, at the bad school misbehaviour tended to be more personal, emotional, situational, less directed.
    The teaching was often decent, but it was done in a very particular way - homework was rare, they didn't, felt they couldn't, rely on parental support, it was all closed in the classroom in a place where everyone had at least a chance. And the subject range was bounded to their conception of "our kids" - some common sense but also the odd lazy middle class conception of what a kid from this school was "capable of" (but for the more working class kids who did aspire and hopped to the other school, the perception of what the "town kids" were like was often rather starker still).

    And the horrible conclusion I came to was that the traditional snobby good area / bad area school selection that most people make - and which is a somewhat different judgement from good school / bad school - is probably the right one. A very average school in an OK area is a safer choice than a good school in a bad area.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,916
    Leon 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?
    Fuck the old c*nts. The young need to rebel. Up to year 80 the NHS will give you the best healthcare possible. After that, you're on your own. You've had three scores years and ten PLUS TEN. What more do you want? You make private provision, or you are given a shitload of cheap lethal opiates, bye bye oldtimer

    I honestly believe we will soon face choices as stark as this. The ageing of humanity cannot be managed otherwise (unless AI or the aliens save us)

    What is this clinging on to life crap anyhow. It is pathetic. 80 is a really good age. Now fuck off
    Immoral and unethical. We have healthcare not deathcare.

    In any case average life expectancy in the UK is already falling
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/23/male-life-expectancy-uk-drops-covid-females
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,318

    MaxPB said:

    Our analysts have written their analysis on the special fiscal operation, their précis.

    Great for anybody earning above £150k and terrible for the country.

    We're likely to have something to rival Black Wednesday soon.

    Yes, that about sums up ours too. A tiny proportion of the nation will benefit, everyone else will face higher inflation due to sterling tanking and higher real interest rates because the benchmark rates (5y and 10y gilts) have gone up significantly.

    The BoE will need a 100 point raise in rates in the coming week just to support sterling and stave off short term import inflation.
    It's tragic, you and I are both going to benefit from today's changes, and what are we likely to do with it?

    Invest it, save it for our kids and our retirement which isn't going to boost the economy.
    Do you think income tax was too low under Blair?
    Taxes are like my girlfriend's fiancée's knickers, I always want to see them lower.
    Congratulations on your engagement. You're such a charmer, she's a lucky lady.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,537
    HYUFD said:

    Leon 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?
    Fuck the old c*nts. The young need to rebel. Up to year 80 the NHS will give you the best healthcare possible. After that, you're on your own. You've had three scores years and ten PLUS TEN. What more do you want? You make private provision, or you are given a shitload of cheap lethal opiates, bye bye oldtimer

    I honestly believe we will soon face choices as stark as this. The ageing of humanity cannot be managed otherwise (unless AI or the aliens save us)

    What is this clinging on to life crap anyhow. It is pathetic. 80 is a really good age. Now fuck off
    Immoral and unethical. We have healthcare not deathcare.

    In any case average life expectancy in the UK is already falling
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/23/male-life-expectancy-uk-drops-covid-females
    The Tory dividends just keep coming.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,565

    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.
    I am in the same position with two parents. For the life of me I do not understand why young people are working hard and sweating blood to keep them alive at this point. They are both will into their 80s, and the UK state has served both of them generously, keeping them defended, making sure they are warm, excellently educating their children and grandchildren, and so on

    Enough
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,318
    HYUFD said:

    Leon 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?
    Fuck the old c*nts. The young need to rebel. Up to year 80 the NHS will give you the best healthcare possible. After that, you're on your own. You've had three scores years and ten PLUS TEN. What more do you want? You make private provision, or you are given a shitload of cheap lethal opiates, bye bye oldtimer

    I honestly believe we will soon face choices as stark as this. The ageing of humanity cannot be managed otherwise (unless AI or the aliens save us)

    What is this clinging on to life crap anyhow. It is pathetic. 80 is a really good age. Now fuck off
    Immoral and unethical. We have healthcare not deathcare.

    In any case average life expectancy in the UK is already falling
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/23/male-life-expectancy-uk-drops-covid-females
    Another sign of the country prospering after 12 years of Conservative government.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,147
    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?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,113
    Based on the market reaction, Kwasi Kwarteng's fiscal boost plan is completely, totally, utterly unaffordable https://trib.al/dNRxbMe
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,916
    Carnyx 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
    https://twitter.com/theloudentavern/status/894970616025108480

    Colour scheme remind you of something?
    Yes the Union Jack, not the St George's flag
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,537
    edited September 23
    The solution for young people is simple - immigration.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,917

    HYUFD said:

    Leon 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?
    Fuck the old c*nts. The young need to rebel. Up to year 80 the NHS will give you the best healthcare possible. After that, you're on your own. You've had three scores years and ten PLUS TEN. What more do you want? You make private provision, or you are given a shitload of cheap lethal opiates, bye bye oldtimer

    I honestly believe we will soon face choices as stark as this. The ageing of humanity cannot be managed otherwise (unless AI or the aliens save us)

    What is this clinging on to life crap anyhow. It is pathetic. 80 is a really good age. Now fuck off
    Immoral and unethical. We have healthcare not deathcare.

    In any case average life expectancy in the UK is already falling
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/23/male-life-expectancy-uk-drops-covid-females
    The Tory dividends just keep coming.
    Makeds you wonder when the Outer Party members will cotton on.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,916
    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Does anyone know what the voting hours will be in Italy?

    Polls close at 10pm UK time on Sunday, 11pm Italian time. Truss I am sure will be hoping for a Meloni win to give her an ally at the G7
    Thank you. Interesting that Meloni and Berlusconi disagree on Russia/Ukraine.
    Though Berlusconi has had to backtrack on that
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,113
    ...
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,318
    Leon 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?
    Fuck the old c*nts. The young need to rebel. Up to year 80 the NHS will give you the best healthcare possible. After that, you're on your own. You've had three scores years and ten PLUS TEN. What more do you want? You make private provision, or you are given a shitload of cheap lethal opiates, bye bye oldtimer

    I honestly believe we will soon face choices as stark as this. The ageing of humanity cannot be managed otherwise (unless AI or the aliens save us)

    What is this clinging on to life crap anyhow. It is pathetic. 80 is a really good age. Now fuck off
    I always thought that "fuck the old c*nts" was the last thing you wanted to do.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,917
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx 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
    https://twitter.com/theloudentavern/status/894970616025108480

    Colour scheme remind you of something?
    Yes the Union Jack, not the St George's flag
    No, it's the Union Flag. It's not on the jackstaff of a RN ship. Tut.

    But not the Saltire either.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,493
    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.
    But it's not just a birthday slogan - age really is just a number. It correlates well with infirmity, but it isn't the same thing. The Queen at 80 had 15 years of good reigning in her. Joe Biden at 80, well, sadly doesn't seem to. That's why those types of decision have to be based on the doctor and the individual, not the age.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,453

    The solution for young people is simple - immigration.

    Don't you mean emigration?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,412

    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
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,537

    Leon 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?
    Fuck the old c*nts. The young need to rebel. Up to year 80 the NHS will give you the best healthcare possible. After that, you're on your own. You've had three scores years and ten PLUS TEN. What more do you want? You make private provision, or you are given a shitload of cheap lethal opiates, bye bye oldtimer

    I honestly believe we will soon face choices as stark as this. The ageing of humanity cannot be managed otherwise (unless AI or the aliens save us)

    What is this clinging on to life crap anyhow. It is pathetic. 80 is a really good age. Now fuck off
    I always thought that "fuck the old c*nts" was the last thing you wanted to do.
    Well, he wants others to do it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,916

    The solution for young people is simple - immigration.

    No it isn't, uncontrolled immigration adds even more pressure to housing and wages
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,242
    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.
    The rich get many benefits by virtue of being rich. It doesn't follow, of course, that the scales need to be tipped ever more in their favour.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,113
    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
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,538
    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.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,916
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx 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
    https://twitter.com/theloudentavern/status/894970616025108480

    Colour scheme remind you of something?
    Yes the Union Jack, not the St George's flag
    No, it's the Union Flag. It's not on the jackstaff of a RN ship. Tut.

    But not the Saltire either.
    You can be a proud Scot and Unionist, Ruth Davidson always supports Scotland v England for example but still is loyal to her monarch and sovereign country, the UK
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,537
    Foxy said:

    The solution for young people is simple - immigration.

    Don't you mean emigration?
    Yes, but I am not in the UK, hah.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,412
    We keep people alive who if they were dogs or cats the vet would advocate euthanasia and report us for animal cruelty if we didnt follow their advice. By all means keep people alive if they are still living.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,284
    edited September 23
    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

  • 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?
    Of course not Foxy but how do we get some sense of intergenerational equity?

    Pagan2 was trying to think of a mechanism to help with that, I don't know the answer.

    Intergenerational Equity: An Exploration of the ‘Fair Innings’ Argument

    Many different equity principles may need to be traded off against efficiency when prioritizing health care. This paper explores one of them: the concept of a ‘fair innings’. It reflects the feeling that everyone is entitled to some ‘normal’ span of health (usually expressed in life years, e.g. ‘three score years and ten’) and anyone failing to achieve this has been cheated, whilst anyone getting more than this is ‘living on borrowed time’. Four important characteristics of the ‘fair innings’ notion are worth noting: firstly, it is outcome based, not process-based or resource-based; secondly, it is about a person's whole life-time experience, not about their state at any particular point in time; thirdly, it reflects an aversion to inequality; and fourthly, it is quantifiable. Even in common parlance it is usually expressed in numerical terms: death at 25 is viewed very differently from death at 85. But age at death should be no more than a first approximation, because the quality of a person's life is important as well as its length. The analysis suggests that this notion of intergenerational equity requires greater discrimination against the elderly than would be dictated simply by efficiency objectives.

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199703)6:2<117::AID-HEC256>3.0.CO;2-B
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,109
    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 me, and it's why I didn't vote for dipshit


  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,318
    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.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,122
    Just dropping in to repost this article by the much missed @AlastairMeeks which seems all the more relevant today -

    https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/06/13/dont-laugh-at-us-argentina/
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 3,815
    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Does anyone know what the voting hours will be in Italy?

    Polls close at 10pm UK time on Sunday, 11pm Italian time. Truss I am sure will be hoping for a Meloni win to give her an ally at the G7
    7am CEST start.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,916

    Foxy said:

    The solution for young people is simple - immigration.

    Don't you mean emigration?
    Yes, but I am not in the UK, hah.
    Fine if you are highly skilled and can become a higher earning lawyer or banker or doctor or Big Tech worker.

    If not then you will soon fine the US offers little to no welfare state, no public healthcare for most and housing now at least as expensive as the UK, average US house price now $428,700
    https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/research/average-house-price-state/#:~:text=Average home price in the United States: $428,700&amp;text=That's a 30% increase from,when the median was $329,000.&amp;text=Median sales price of homes,of homes in the U.S.&amp;text=Data source: Federal Reserve Bank of St.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,493
    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
    Gosh. I am so so sorry to hear this.

  • 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
    Does he like music?

    Music can do powerful things for people with dementia. Play some of his favourites, get a drum or tambourine and make some yourselves. Seriously.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,565
    edited September 23
    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
    The Greenlanders of Ilullisat have a place called suicide fjord. where the oldsters are expected to go and jump, at a certain age, out of respect and thanks to their community

    It is linked to the Nordic concept of Attestupa

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ättestupa


    The problem is that we have lost religious faith, so everyone is shit scared of dying, like a bunch of pussies. Get over yourselves. The soul survives death, but is reabsorbed into the great aquifer of consciousness that is the universe

    We need to give old people tons of ayahuasca - for faith - then loads of morphine and coke - for death
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,412

    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.
    I love my country and hate almost all the people in it but I am not conservative
  • 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.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,916

    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
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,537
    edited September 23
    The much maligned Barty did in fact recommend increased euthanasia as part of his fiscal prescription the other day.

    Mind you, he’s more bat-shit than a transylvanian belfry.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,916

    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
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,537
    Cyclefree said:

    Just dropping in to repost this article by the much missed @AlastairMeeks which seems all the more relevant today -

    https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/06/13/dont-laugh-at-us-argentina/

    As Meeks (and others) intuited, Brexit was the beginning of the great debauch.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,147
    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.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,412

    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
    Does he like music?

    Music can do powerful things for people with dementia. Play some of his favourites, get a drum or tambourine and make some yourselves. Seriously.
    He doesn't no, he doesn't read and never has, he doesnt watch tv and never has either. All his life has revolved around being around people and that life has changed unfortunately so when no one is around he just sits on the sofa and cries. When people are around he generally doesnt recognise them anymore
  • maxhmaxh Posts: 146
    @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.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,565
    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
  • 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.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,100
    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Does anyone know what the voting hours will be in Italy?

    Polls close at 10pm UK time on Sunday, 11pm Italian time. Truss I am sure will be hoping for a Meloni win to give her an ally at the G7
    Thank you. Interesting that Meloni and Berlusconi disagree on Russia/Ukraine.
    Berlusconi has a pillow with Putin's face on, would you believe.
  • 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
    Would you do the dirty acts for us?
  • 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".
  • Young people are paying 20-50% of their income in rent

    Cut average rent to below 10% of average income, as it was in the 1950s, BY BUILDING MORE HOMES, and put up taxes to cover the increased cost of health and social care

    Boom, young people can build capital, and old people can get their arses wiped in luxury care homes until they're 105
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,917
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx 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
    https://twitter.com/theloudentavern/status/894970616025108480

    Colour scheme remind you of something?
    Yes the Union Jack, not the St George's flag
    No, it's the Union Flag. It's not on the jackstaff of a RN ship. Tut.

    But not the Saltire either.
    You can be a proud Scot and Unionist, Ruth Davidson always supports Scotland v England for example but still is loyal to her monarch and sovereign country, the UK
    But she's disloyal to your great hero Boris Johnson, so doesn't count anyway in your Weltanschauung.
  • Pagan2 said:

    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
    Does he like music?

    Music can do powerful things for people with dementia. Play some of his favourites, get a drum or tambourine and make some yourselves. Seriously.
    He doesn't no, he doesn't read and never has, he doesnt watch tv and never has either. All his life has revolved around being around people and that life has changed unfortunately so when no one is around he just sits on the sofa and cries. When people are around he generally doesnt recognise them anymore
    That's crap. Perhaps try anyway.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,565

    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
    Would you do the dirty acts for us?
    Yep
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,916
    edited September 23
    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 as well as axing tax for the rich so the idea the young are subsidising the old is old hat.

    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
  • Leon 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
    Would you do the dirty acts for us?
    Yep
    Hello Dr Shipman.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,538
    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.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,631
    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.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,147
    edited September 23
    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 on how. 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.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,453
    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Does anyone know what the voting hours will be in Italy?

    Polls close at 10pm UK time on Sunday, 11pm Italian time. Truss I am sure will be hoping for a Meloni win to give her an ally at the G7
    Thank you. Interesting that Meloni and Berlusconi disagree on Russia/Ukraine.
    Berlusconi has a pillow with Putin's face on, would you believe.
    Not a pillow on Putins face? Pity...
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651
    edited September 23
    Leon said:

    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
    The Greenlanders of Ilullisat have a place called suicide fjord. where the oldsters are expected to go and jump, at a certain age, out of respect and thanks to their community

    It is linked to the Nordic concept of Attestupa

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ättestupa


    The problem is that we have lost religious faith, so everyone is shit scared of dying, like a bunch of pussies. Get over yourselves. The soul survives death, but is reabsorbed into the great aquifer of consciousness that is the universe

    We need to give old people tons of ayahuasca - for faith - then loads of morphine and coke - for death
    Ilullisat can't rival Beachy Head. Beachy Head has a chaplain in a Land Rover. Dunno whether they have a special line from the nearby pub. ISTR there's a place in Japan that does rival BH.

    The Inuits might easily do away with a crazy psycho (kulangeta) who had a mass killing fixation, whether or not he was fashionable enough to blame it on his unfortunate inheritance of killiness in his genes.

    image
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,934
    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.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,916

    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
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 19,944
    Pro_Rata said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Does anyone know what the voting hours will be in Italy?

    Polls close at 10pm UK time on Sunday, 11pm Italian time. Truss I am sure will be hoping for a Meloni win to give her an ally at the G7
    7am CEST start.
    For some reason I thought voting started on Saturday in Italy and ended on Sunday.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,100
    kle4 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.
    The rich get many benefits by virtue of being rich. It doesn't follow, of course, that the scales need to be tipped ever more in their favour.
    Spot on and this is at the heart of my politics. Money buys advantage in almost everything. That's how it is and always will be. The government should act to mitigate this not to facilitate it.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,537

    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.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,538
    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.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,917
    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
    Only two? Given the financial dominance in Scottish football, there should be a much, much higher proportion.

  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,308
    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.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,916
    edited September 23

    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.
    It is for now, if Truss wins the next general election it remains so.

    If she leads the Tories to heavy defeat libertarianism will however recede in influence within the party. First the social conservatives like Badenoch will take over the party, then in time the One Nation Tories like Tugendhat again
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,565
    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

  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,537
    Dynamo said:

    Leon said:

    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
    The Greenlanders of Ilullisat have a place called suicide fjord. where the oldsters are expected to go and jump, at a certain age, out of respect and thanks to their community

    It is linked to the Nordic concept of Attestupa

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ättestupa


    The problem is that we have lost religious faith, so everyone is shit scared of dying, like a bunch of pussies. Get over yourselves. The soul survives death, but is reabsorbed into the great aquifer of consciousness that is the universe

    We need to give old people tons of ayahuasca - for faith - then loads of morphine and coke - for death
    Ilullisat can't rival Beachy Head. Beachy Head has a chaplain in a Land Rover. Dunno whether they have a special line from the nearby pub. ISTR there's a place in Japan that does rival BH.

    The Inuits might easily do away with a crazy psycho (kulangeta) who had a mass killing fixation, whether or not he was fashionable enough to blame it on his unfortunate inheritance of killiness in his genes.

    image
    The Brits have Beachy Head.
    The Russians have the Special Military Operation.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,934

    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.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,770
    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 as well as axing tax for the rich so the idea the young are subsidising the old is old hat.

    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
    They haven't axed NHS spending yet (give them time) but they have redirected £500m of it towards social care.

    What the NHS cuts to generate the £500m of savings required hasn't been revealed yet...
This discussion has been closed.