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

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Foxy said:

TinkyWinky said:

Leon said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky 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.

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Foxy said:

TinkyWinky said:

Leon said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky 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

williamglenn said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Foxy said:

TinkyWinky said:

Leon said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky 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.

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Foxy said:

TinkyWinky said:

Leon said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky 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.

Andy_JS said:

carnforth said:

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

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

You cannot solve a housing crisis when the population of the country is rising so fast. No matter how fast you build homes it won't be enough. In the 70s and 80s the population was almost flat which meant it was easy to build enough homes.

HYUFD said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered 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

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Foxy said:

TinkyWinky said:

Leon said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Phil said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

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

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

Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you

“The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?

Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.

Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.

Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

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

You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?

You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

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

We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.

Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it

Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.

Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay

That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.

perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"

Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

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

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

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

I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs

There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

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

But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?

Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?

No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.

So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?

As with everything else in life.

That doesn’t mean anything.

The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?

Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.

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

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

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

Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.

You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.

The question is stupid and utterly self defeating. It has been answered repeatedly. If you had your way we would have not made progress and settled for some arbitrary so called ‘natural’ limit years ago.

Still no answers then. And those bygone eras are not comparable to today. That was an age where people were getting healthier and basic nutrition provided a huge boost to people's health and longevity. We're now at the other end of the scale where people's lifestyles are now a burden, especially in older age.

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

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

PeterM said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Foxy said:

TinkyWinky said:

Leon said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Phil said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

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

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

Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you

“The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?

Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.

Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.

Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

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

You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?

You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

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

We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.

Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it

Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.

Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay

That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.

perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"

Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

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

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

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

I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs

There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

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

But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?

Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?

No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.

So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?

As with everything else in life.

That doesn’t mean anything.

The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?

Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.

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

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

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

Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.

You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.

The question is stupid and utterly self defeating. It has been answered repeatedly. If you had your way we would have not made progress and settled for some arbitrary so called ‘natural’ limit years ago.

Still no answers then. And those bygone eras are not comparable to today. That was an age where people were getting healthier and basic nutrition provided a huge boost to people's health and longevity. We're now at the other end of the scale where people's lifestyles are now a burden, especially in older age.

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

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

Dementia also wrecks the lives of those around the afflicted person. The alternatives are care for a shell of a person who will steadily deteriorate or pay for expensive long term care

MightyAlex said:

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.

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Foxy said:

TinkyWinky said:

Leon said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Phil said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

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

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

Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you

“The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?

Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.

Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.

Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

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

You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?

You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

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

We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.

Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it

Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.

Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay

That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.

perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"

Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

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

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

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

I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs

There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

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

But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?

Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?

No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.

So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?

As with everything else in life.

That doesn’t mean anything.

The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?

Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.

The definition of a conservative is someone who loves their country but hates most of the people in it.

No conservative would deny healthcare to the old, libertarians might but they are not conservatives

This is not a conservative/liberal/libertarian trifecta

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

Yes it is.

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

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

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

If they axe NHS spending too to pay for it an pursue the pure ideological libertarianism you suggest, then Tory defeat would turn into a landslide of worse than 1997 proportions

Believe it or not, I'm not talking about perceived electoral advantage for any particular party, I'm not even talking about the UK really, I am talking about the way we deal with old age and death

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

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

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

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

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

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Foxy said:

TinkyWinky said:

Leon said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Phil said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

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

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

Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you

“The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?

Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.

Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.

Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

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

You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?

You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

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

We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.

Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it

Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.

Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay

That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.

perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"

Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

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

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

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

I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs

There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

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

But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?

Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?

No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.

So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?

As with everything else in life.

That doesn’t mean anything.

The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?

Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.

The definition of a conservative is someone who loves their country but hates most of the people in it.

No conservative would deny healthcare to the old, libertarians might but they are not conservatives

This is not a conservative/liberal/libertarian trifecta

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

Yes it is.

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

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

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

If they axe NHS spending too to pay for it an pursue the pure ideological libertarianism you suggest, then Tory defeat would turn into a landslide of worse than 1997 proportions

Believe it or not, I'm not talking about perceived electoral advantage for any particular party, I'm not even talking about the UK really, I am talking about the way we deal with old age and death

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

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

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

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

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

What you really want is to stop smugly dictating to "your elderly" from a self-defined position of "truly religious," meaning in reality narrow-minded bigotry wuth a New Testament veneer over the top. If and when I want tio die, what in the name of Christ does it have to do with a ghastly little semi-educated Essex god-botherer like you?

No offence.

PeterM said:

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

carnforth said:

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

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

You cannot solve a housing crisis when the population of the country is rising so fast. No matter how fast you build homes it won't be enough. In the 70s and 80s the population was almost flat which meant it was easy to build enough homes.

And the only reason it is rising is immigration, further tighten controls there on non EU immigration especially and the problem becomes less of an issue. The UK birthrate is below replacement level, it was higher in the 70s and 80s but immigration was lower

Problem is cut immigration and economic growth plummets

PeterM said:

Bournville said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Foxy said:

TinkyWinky said:

Leon said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Phil said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

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

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

Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you

“The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?

Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.

Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.

Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

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

You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?

You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

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

We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.

Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it

Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.

Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay

That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.

perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"

Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

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

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

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

I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs

There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

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

But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?

Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?

No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.

So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?

As with everything else in life.

That doesn’t mean anything.

The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?

Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.

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

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

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

Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.

You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.

The UK isn't turning into Japan because Japan invests in infrastructure and housing. You can get a 1 bedroom apartment for about £650pcm in Tokyo (https://resources.realestate.co.jp/rent/what-is-the-average-rent-in-tokyo-2020-ranking-by-ward-and-layout/) compared to £2000 in London (https://www.home.co.uk/for_rent/london/current_rents?location=london). We're turning into a cross between Greece, in terms of lack of opportunities for the young, and Portugal, in terms of rentierism.

Problem is at least those places have nice weather. Better to be poor in Greece than the UK

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Foxy said:

TinkyWinky said:

Leon said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Phil said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

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

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

Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you

“The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?

Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.

Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.

Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

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

You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?

You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

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

We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.

Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it

Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.

Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay

That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.

perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"

Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

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

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

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

I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs

There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

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

But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?

Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?

No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.

So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?

As with everything else in life.

That doesn’t mean anything.

The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?

Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.

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

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

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

Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.

You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.

The question is stupid and utterly self defeating. It has been answered repeatedly. If you had your way we would have not made progress and settled for some arbitrary so called ‘natural’ limit years ago.

Still no answers then. And those bygone eras are not comparable to today. That was an age where people were getting healthier and basic nutrition provided a huge boost to people's health and longevity. We're now at the other end of the scale where people's lifestyles are now a burden, especially in older age.

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

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

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

HOWEVER

I am some pints deep so partyyyyy

rottenborough said:

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

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Foxy said:

TinkyWinky said:

Leon said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Phil said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

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

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

Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you

“The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?

Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.

Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.

Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

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

You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?

You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

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

We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.

Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it

Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.

Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay

That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.

perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"

Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

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

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

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

I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs

There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

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

But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?

Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?

No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.

So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?

As with everything else in life.

That doesn’t mean anything.

The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?

Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.

The definition of a conservative is someone who loves their country but hates most of the people in it.

No conservative would deny healthcare to the old, libertarians might but they are not conservatives

This is not a conservative/liberal/libertarian trifecta

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

Yes it is.

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

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

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

If they axe NHS spending too to pay for it an pursue the pure ideological libertarianism you suggest, then Tory defeat would turn into a landslide of worse than 1997 proportions

Believe it or not, I'm not talking about perceived electoral advantage for any particular party, I'm not even talking about the UK really, I am talking about the way we deal with old age and death

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

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

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

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

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

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Foxy said:

TinkyWinky said:

Leon said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Phil said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

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

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

Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you

“The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?

Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.

Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.

Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

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

You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?

You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

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

We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.

Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it

Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.

Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay

That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.

perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"

Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

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

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

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

I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs

There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

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

But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?

Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?

No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.

So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?

As with everything else in life.

That doesn’t mean anything.

The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?

Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.

The definition of a conservative is someone who loves their country but hates most of the people in it.

No conservative would deny healthcare to the old, libertarians might but they are not conservatives

This is not a conservative/liberal/libertarian trifecta

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

Yes it is.

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

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

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

If they axe NHS spending too to pay for it an pursue the pure ideological libertarianism you suggest, then Tory defeat would turn into a landslide of worse than 1997 proportions

Believe it or not, I'm not talking about perceived electoral advantage for any particular party, I'm not even talking about the UK really, I am talking about the way we deal with old age and death

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

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

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

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

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

What you really want is to stop smugly dictating to "your elderly" from a self-defined position of "truly religious," meaning in reality narrow-minded bigotry wuth a New Testament veneer over the top. If and when I want tio die, what in the name of Christ does it have to do with a ghastly little semi-educated Essex god-botherer like you?

No offence.

Everything, as life is sacred and given by God. Only God has the right to decide when to take it away

williamglenn said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Foxy said:

TinkyWinky said:

Leon said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky 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.

Leon said:

Foxy said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Foxy said:

TinkyWinky said:

Leon said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Phil said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

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

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

Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you

“The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?

Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.

Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.

Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

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

You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?

You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

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

We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.

Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it

Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.

Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay

That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.

perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"

Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

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

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

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

I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs

There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

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

But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?

Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?

No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.

So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?

As with everything else in life.

That doesn’t mean anything.

The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?

Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.

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

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

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

Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.

You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.

The question is stupid and utterly self defeating. It has been answered repeatedly. If you had your way we would have not made progress and settled for some arbitrary so called ‘natural’ limit years ago.

Still no answers then. And those bygone eras are not comparable to today. That was an age where people were getting healthier and basic nutrition provided a huge boost to people's health and longevity. We're now at the other end of the scale where people's lifestyles are now a burden, especially in older age.

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

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

That is not correct. We do not keep people alive when they have no quality of life. Sensitive discussion is needed with patients and relatives in order to set a treatment plan, and that may well be palliative care. I speak not just professionally, but also from personal experience. My mother in law died a year ago, with an explicit care plan to nurse her to a comfortable death after a major stroke on a background of moderate dementia.

With all respect, that is not my experience at all

Many friends and family report years of distressing dementia in old and close relatives

PeterM said:

Leon said:

PeterM said:

Bournville said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Foxy said:

TinkyWinky said:

Leon said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

TinkyWinky said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Phil said:

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

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

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

Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you

“The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?

Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.

Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.

Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

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

You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?

You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

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

We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.

Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it

Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.

Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay

That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.

perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"

Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

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

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

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

I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs

There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

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

But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?

Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?

No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.

So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?

As with everything else in life.

That doesn’t mean anything.

The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?

Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.

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

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

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

Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.

You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.

The UK isn't turning into Japan because Japan invests in infrastructure and housing. You can get a 1 bedroom apartment for about £650pcm in Tokyo (https://resources.realestate.co.jp/rent/what-is-the-average-rent-in-tokyo-2020-ranking-by-ward-and-layout/) compared to £2000 in London (https://www.home.co.uk/for_rent/london/current_rents?location=london). We're turning into a cross between Greece, in terms of lack of opportunities for the young, and Portugal, in terms of rentierism.

Problem is at least those places have nice weather. Better to be poor in Greece than the UK

For how long tho? The Mediterranean - for the first time in my life - has become a place where you think, Fuck, this is too hot - for long parts of the summer

Think the northern meditteranean like the south of france should stay bearable in summer...souther spain and greece maybe less so