Norman Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 3 minutes ago, reverendo de duivel said: I think the debate should be about the failure to plan and prepare for immigration, rather than the immigration itself. But that's been and gone. Successive governments have failed us. The only way I can see any improvement is to limit numbers. So I think the debate has to be about immigration itself. We can't keep having a city the size of Newcastle popping up every year faster than you can build the infrastructure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1of4 Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 10 minutes ago, Norman said: It's not really the debate though, is it? Because nobody had said they are going to privatise the NHS. The debate is why it is being run into the ground. Is it because of funding? Because @maxjam 's post seems to suggest it might be population that is the problem. Or a very sharp rise in a short period of time that infrastructure will struggle to keep up with. I think the debate is really about immigration. Yes the NHS is definitely about immigration. If it wasn't for all the foreign doctors and nurses working in it. The NHS wouldn't be able to function, even if was adequately funded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 Just now, 1of4 said: Yes the NHS is definitely about immigration. If it wasn't for all the foreign doctors and nurses working in it. The NHS wouldn't be able to function, even if was adequately funded I have no problem with immigration. I am fully aware of the benefits this country has seen from immigration. But you make no valid point. Are you saying a more controlled approach to immigration would not work? Because I am pretty sure doctors and nurses might be at the top of the list of those who would be wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 17 minutes ago, Norman said: It's not really the debate though, is it? Because nobody had said they are going to privatise the NHS. The debate is why it is being run into the ground. Is it because of funding? Because @maxjam 's post seems to suggest it might be population that is the problem. Or a very sharp rise in a short period of time that infrastructure will struggle to keep up with. I think the debate is really about immigration. The Health and Social care Act 2012 removed the responsibility of the Heath Secretary to ‘provide or secure the provision of services’ for the NHS. Secondly the Health and Social Care Act introduced competition to the health service, and NHS Trusts are now required to put service contracts on the open market, which has inevitably led to private companies winning contracts. This means the NHS is already for sale – 18% of contracts now go to private providers, including Virgin Care, Priory Group (an American healthcare company) and others. This represents an increase since the introduction of the Act in 2012. This change has already seen the NHS and local commissioning groups legally challenged over their decision to award contracts to certain companies and not others. Do you believe a Johnson led Tory government won't speed up the creeping privatisation already taking place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 13 minutes ago, uttoxram75 said: The Health and Social care Act 2012 removed the responsibility of the Heath Secretary to ‘provide or secure the provision of services’ for the NHS. Secondly the Health and Social Care Act introduced competition to the health service, and NHS Trusts are now required to put service contracts on the open market, which has inevitably led to private companies winning contracts. This means the NHS is already for sale – 18% of contracts now go to private providers, including Virgin Care, Priory Group (an American healthcare company) and others. This represents an increase since the introduction of the Act in 2012. This change has already seen the NHS and local commissioning groups legally challenged over their decision to award contracts to certain companies and not others. Do you believe a Johnson led Tory government won't speed up the creeping privatisation already taking place? A copy and paste from left foot forward.org No I don't. It's far more complicated than that. FTA, the EU, negotiations all come into play with privatisation. If you want to protect the NHS from privatisation, you need to make sure the government in charge aren't willing to go over the parameters where by it would be available under a FTA. I don't believe the government would do that. Nor would it have enough support to change the law. Only my opinion, though. Do you trust Corbyn not to wreck the NHS completely by having open borders? Because 300,000 extra people a year for the next 10 years will cripple it, speeding up the need for privitisation.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1of4 Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 2 minutes ago, Norman said: I have no problem with immigration. I am fully aware of the benefits this country has seen from immigration. But you make no valid point. Are you saying a more controlled approach to immigration would not work? Because I am pretty sure doctors and nurses might be at the top of the list of those who would be wanted. Who should or shouldn't be allowed to work here. Ok we let in the doctors and nurses maybe other highly skilled workers like engineers and scientists. What should happen with all the foreign porters and cleaners that also help keep the NHS operating. The workers that many farmers will claim are needed to get their products out of the fields and onto the supermarket shelves. These jobs are deemed to be low skilled, but for the country to function, they still require filling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 46 minutes ago, Norman said: Only my opinion, though. Same here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gee SCREAMER !! Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 2 hours ago, Norman said: The birth rate is 1.8 per woman, from us natives, no? Paying a few thousand each in tax doesn't cover the infrastructure necessary for such sharp increases in population, surely? From prisons, to hospitals, to schools, to GPs, to housing, to roads, to the rail network? it doesn't. It also seems to go over people heads, that you could work in the UK for 6 months and probably claim all that tax back whilst claiming Tax Credit on top . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ariotofmyown Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 We should privatise the less urgent NHS services and operations. This would allow the companies to make big money whilst providing a great service to customers who have the less complex issues. The urgent and complex issues can then be left to an underfunded NHS to increase the demand for more and more privatisation until the NHS are left with the most costly services to fulfil. Finally this will also be privitisied and only the rich will be able to afford adequate urgent care and the likes of A&E. Poorer people will have to choose between a dire level of service or huge medical insurance. And we will all live in a wonderful caring country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TobyWanKenobi Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 Argue all you like about a lot of the polices on offer at the moment, but Labours proposal of high speed reliable broadband for all is basically a perfect idea. It will improve business, education, science, entertainment, public service and more all in one move. The other parties should be snapping it up as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptherams Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 Healthcare is devolved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptherams Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 4 minutes ago, TobyWanKenobi said: Argue all you like about a lot of the polices on offer at the moment, but Labours proposal of high speed reliable broadband for all is basically a perfect idea. It will improve business, education, science, entertainment, public service and more all in one move. The other parties should be snapping it up as well. High speed reliable broadband is great. The state having more power and control over the internet is not. 'Sorry Toby, you have been denied access to internet for 6 months for not complying.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptherams Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 8 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said: We should privatise the less urgent NHS services and operations. This would allow the companies to make big money whilst providing a great service to customers who have the less complex issues. The urgent and complex issues can then be left to an underfunded NHS to increase the demand for more and more privatisation until the NHS are left with the most costly services to fulfil. Finally this will also be privitisied and only the rich will be able to afford adequate urgent care and the likes of A&E. Poorer people will have to choose between a dire level of service or huge medical insurance. And we will all live in a wonderful caring country. The NHS isn't underfunded. We have an ever increasing burden from a proportion of the population that should be leading much healthier lives. Funding should go towards tackling causes rather than treatment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TobyWanKenobi Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 2 minutes ago, Uptherams said: High speed reliable broadband is great. The state having more power and control over the internet is not. 'Sorry Toby, you have been denied access to internet for 6 months for not complying.' What you have done is apply conditions to the proposal that weren't there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van der MoodHoover Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 1 hour ago, ariotofmyown said: We should privatise the less urgent NHS services and operations. This would allow the companies to make big money whilst providing a great service to customers who have the less complex issues. The urgent and complex issues can then be left to an underfunded NHS to increase the demand for more and more privatisation until the NHS are left with the most costly services to fulfil. Finally this will also be privitisied and only the rich will be able to afford adequate urgent care and the likes of A&E. Poorer people will have to choose between a dire level of service or huge medical insurance. And we will all live in a wonderful caring country. We will all be living in Borisylvania, the 51st state of the US of A&E ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 13 hours ago, 1of4 said: Who should or shouldn't be allowed to work here. Ok we let in the doctors and nurses maybe other highly skilled workers like engineers and scientists. What should happen with all the foreign porters and cleaners that also help keep the NHS operating. The workers that many farmers will claim are needed to get their products out of the fields and onto the supermarket shelves. These jobs are deemed to be low skilled, but for the country to function, they still require filling. I think the word 'controlled' might be slipping your thoughts. You control how many you need in each sector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 1 hour ago, TobyWanKenobi said: What you have done is apply conditions to the proposal that weren't there. So what are these easy new tax rules that will come into force to enable the purchase of the network? Amazon and Google currently comply with all laws. And how would changing the laws effect other investment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptherams Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 1 hour ago, TobyWanKenobi said: What you have done is apply conditions to the proposal that weren't there. Tories spying on you and banning things online bad, Labour having control over the internet good. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 13 hours ago, uttoxram75 said: Same here! Which I respect. We both want the same thing, just have didn't views of getting there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TobyWanKenobi Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 54 minutes ago, Uptherams said: Tories spying on you and banning things online bad, Labour having control over the internet good. ? Making it easily accessible to all, I think you mean! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.