RugbyRebels

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
Are you endorsing the current two tier system of private and NHS or just that companies hiring people over £X per year need to pay in extra for those people. Cause the latter I'd be intrigued by, but the former is a problem. It's the same as with private schools - the best personnel will be hunted by the fee-paying sector, denuding the national service, and creating a two tier system where paying more gets you better quality in something which should be a universal right. And, funnily enough, almost all of the decision-makers and people with influence in the country have enough money to be signed up to the fee-paying option, so if the national service goes to the dogs, it doesn't have the slightest effect on them or their loved ones.

Tl;dr - I am uncomfortable with survival rate in healthcare depending on how rich you are/your parents were.

Puja

you missed what I said about quality then. I`m saying I am happy to pay twice, as I do, provided free at point of need is not denuded ie not about survival rate. I have also paid twice during my kids education up to uni. Lucky me you might say- though not inherited. Scoff away.

It always will be denuded though. Spending public money for everyone is unpopular, whereas spending money to get your own kids the best is the opposite, so the private sector will always be better funded and better quality. Add to this the fact that none of the decision-makers on how much to fund the public option will have themselves or their kids in the public option and it gets even worse.

Puja

It's not really true of most health care though. Most major health care is improved by people having to do volumes (practice makes perfect). It's probably not true of general practice where it's useful to have someone spend enough time to do a proper assessment, but once you get to specialist level they usually have to do the volume to stay at the top of the game.

BY FAR the most efficient way of delivering health care is the NHS but it needs to be national. That's not to say that local managers shouldn't be able to make some purchasing decisions or have a shift of focus, but for example, having various trust compete with each other to buy PPE is fucking stupid.

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
Are you endorsing the current two tier system of private and NHS or just that companies hiring people over £X per year need to pay in extra for those people. Cause the latter I'd be intrigued by, but the former is a problem. It's the same as with private schools - the best personnel will be hunted by the fee-paying sector, denuding the national service, and creating a two tier system where paying more gets you better quality in something which should be a universal right. And, funnily enough, almost all of the decision-makers and people with influence in the country have enough money to be signed up to the fee-paying option, so if the national service goes to the dogs, it doesn't have the slightest effect on them or their loved ones.

Tl;dr - I am uncomfortable with survival rate in healthcare depending on how rich you are/your parents were.

Puja

you missed what I said about quality then. I`m saying I am happy to pay twice, as I do, provided free at point of need is not denuded ie not about survival rate. I have also paid twice during my kids education up to uni. Lucky me you might say- though not inherited. Scoff away.

It always will be denuded though. Spending public money for everyone is unpopular, whereas spending money to get your own kids the best is the opposite, so the private sector will always be better funded and better quality. Add to this the fact that none of the decision-makers on how much to fund the public option will have themselves or their kids in the public option and it gets even worse.

Puja

Not sure whether you are talking about healthcare or education. Either way, what’s your proposal on healthcare?

And now Trump and Pompeo are causing a problem for our diplomatic relations and how open/honest our government are being with us.

I suspect our government are hoping Trump will get bored and stop rambling or have Pompeo ramble about labs in Wuhan such it quietly goes away, but either our government isn't being honest with us about the source of the outbreak or the US is hiding its intelligence in this area from us. And neither position seems a justifiable one not to comment and clarify on if the government wants to treat its own populace with respect. Yes it's not their fault they've been shafted on this one by Trump, but tough and be honest anyway, difficult I realise for those who gravitate towards being duplicitous pieces of shit

Digby wrote:And now Trump and Pompeo are causing a problem for our diplomatic relations and how open/honest our government are being with us.

I suspect our government are hoping Trump will get bored and stop rambling or have Pompeo ramble about labs in Wuhan such it quietly goes away, but either our government isn't being honest with us about the source of the outbreak or the US is hiding its intelligence in this area from us. And neither position seems a justifiable one not to comment and clarify on if the government wants to treat its own populace with respect. Yes it's not their fault they've been shafted on this one by Trump, but tough and be honest anyway, difficult I realise for those who gravitate towards being duplicitous pieces of shit

Give us a clue?

This:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... lic-health

This is sensible. They should put it in place ASAP for workplaces that are already open.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... e-measures

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:And now Trump and Pompeo are causing a problem for our diplomatic relations and how open/honest our government are being with us.

I suspect our government are hoping Trump will get bored and stop rambling or have Pompeo ramble about labs in Wuhan such it quietly goes away, but either our government isn't being honest with us about the source of the outbreak or the US is hiding its intelligence in this area from us. And neither position seems a justifiable one not to comment and clarify on if the government wants to treat its own populace with respect. Yes it's not their fault they've been shafted on this one by Trump, but tough and be honest anyway, difficult I realise for those who gravitate towards being duplicitous pieces of shit

Give us a clue?

If Trump is right to say we've seen evidence it comes from a lab in Wuhan our government shouldn't be hiding that information, even if they don't know what it means at this point. If Trump is making crap up or has not shared evidence our government should be clear it doesn't share his conclusions. I don't think our government gets to avoid being honest with us just to avoid a diplomatic problem, not even if that problem isn't of their own making. Obfuscation isn't good enough, nor hoping it goes away by itself, two strategies many would already level at Boris and Co in all this

Son of Mathonwy wrote:This is sensible. They should put it in place ASAP for workplaces that are already open.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... e-measures

Many open plan offices are now like battery farms with works sat almost shoulder to shoulder. It wasn't healthy even before this kicked off. I suspect the office of the future will go back to individual booths with some degree of physical separation in place and less workers per square foot. I think that will need to be tied to increased working from home.

Not every working environment is suitable for this, so how smaller shops manage will be interesting; at best a one in one out system.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:And now Trump and Pompeo are causing a problem for our diplomatic relations and how open/honest our government are being with us.

I suspect our government are hoping Trump will get bored and stop rambling or have Pompeo ramble about labs in Wuhan such it quietly goes away, but either our government isn't being honest with us about the source of the outbreak or the US is hiding its intelligence in this area from us. And neither position seems a justifiable one not to comment and clarify on if the government wants to treat its own populace with respect. Yes it's not their fault they've been shafted on this one by Trump, but tough and be honest anyway, difficult I realise for those who gravitate towards being duplicitous pieces of shit

Give us a clue?

If Trump is right to say we've seen evidence it comes from a lab in Wuhan our government shouldn't be hiding that information, even if they don't know what it means at this point. If Trump is making crap up or has not shared evidence our government should be clear it doesn't share his conclusions. I don't think our government gets to avoid being honest with us just to avoid a diplomatic problem, not even if that problem isn't of their own making. Obfuscation isn't good enough, nor hoping it goes away by itself, two strategies many would already level at Boris and Co in all this

So Trump is saying we have also seen it? Or are you saying our government should comment on what he has says? Once more, you are being a tad confusing.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:This is sensible. They should put it in place ASAP for workplaces that are already open.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... e-measures

I'd like more guidance on workplaces that recycle air, likely through the air-con. How often is cleaning required, what filtering is needed, what standards apply to that, can people hot desk and under what sanitary conditions? How do we organise entrances/exits, restrooms and toilets, what are our standards for emergency evacuations and invacuations?

We're already able to work on ordering new furniture that will help us set up space between desks, though for us that along with putting in the space probably means we'd need to rent another floor, so unless we can extend working from home allied to some hotdesking we're probably looking at more redundancies. Renting extra floor space isn't untenable at present rates however, so if we get the extra guidance quickly enough we might avoid redundancies, albeit one fears just in time for Brexit to make it a moot point

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Give us a clue?

If Trump is right to say we've seen evidence it comes from a lab in Wuhan our government shouldn't be hiding that information, even if they don't know what it means at this point. If Trump is making crap up or has not shared evidence our government should be clear it doesn't share his conclusions. I don't think our government gets to avoid being honest with us just to avoid a diplomatic problem, not even if that problem isn't of their own making. Obfuscation isn't good enough, nor hoping it goes away by itself, two strategies many would already level at Boris and Co in all this

So Trump is saying we have also seen it? Or are you saying our government should comment on what he has says? Once more, you are being a tad confusing.

Trumps is saying he's seen it. So our government is in the position of having seen it, or the Americans aren't sharing what might be considered important information with us, or Trump is talking bollocks, any which way I don't see how they get to fail to clarify what's going on, though I do get why they don't want to clarify.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
If Trump is right to say we've seen evidence it comes from a lab in Wuhan our government shouldn't be hiding that information, even if they don't know what it means at this point. If Trump is making crap up or has not shared evidence our government should be clear it doesn't share his conclusions. I don't think our government gets to avoid being honest with us just to avoid a diplomatic problem, not even if that problem isn't of their own making. Obfuscation isn't good enough, nor hoping it goes away by itself, two strategies many would already level at Boris and Co in all this

So Trump is saying we have also seen it? Or are you saying our government should comment on what he has says? Once more, you are being a tad confusing.

Trumps is saying he's seen it. So our government is in the position of having seen it, or the Americans aren't sharing what might be considered important information with us, or Trump is talking bollocks, any which way I don't see how they get to fail to clarify what's going on, though I do get why they don't want to clarify.

Have you been drinking?

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: you missed what I said about quality then. I`m saying I am happy to pay twice, as I do, provided free at point of need is not denuded ie not about survival rate. I have also paid twice during my kids education up to uni. Lucky me you might say- though not inherited. Scoff away.

It always will be denuded though. Spending public money for everyone is unpopular, whereas spending money to get your own kids the best is the opposite, so the private sector will always be better funded and better quality. Add to this the fact that none of the decision-makers on how much to fund the public option will have themselves or their kids in the public option and it gets even worse.

Puja

Not sure whether you are talking about healthcare or education. Either way, what’s your proposal on healthcare?

I am talking both simultaneously as my proposal on both would be the same - a two stream system means that rich people get a better standard of what should be a public right. Everyone should be in the same system, cause that way it'll get properly funded because the system the rich and influential care about will be the same one everyone uses.

Do note that I'm not in any way judging you for sending your kids to private school - had I the money, I would likely do the same (and might still, depending on funds/accessibility of good public secondary schools in my area). While the system exists, you should absolutely do the best for your children that you can. However it would be better and fairer for the country as a whole for the system not to exist.

Puja

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: So Trump is saying we have also seen it? Or are you saying our government should comment on what he has says? Once more, you are being a tad confusing.

Trumps is saying he's seen it. So our government is in the position of having seen it, or the Americans aren't sharing what might be considered important information with us, or Trump is talking bollocks, any which way I don't see how they get to fail to clarify what's going on, though I do get why they don't want to clarify.

Have you been drinking?

Nope.

But which bit doesn't one infer?

If Trump has seen it why haven't we? If we have seen it why aren't we being honest about it? If Trump is talking bollocks why aren't we being honest about that?

I think it'd be helpful if we can have as much openness and transparency as possible, and a useful starting point for that might well be how this came about. And that will be needed because we are likely going to want some global as well as domestic changes on the back of all this, and how this came about will feed into what those changes might be. Trying to suggest and enact changes when your messaging has veered and/or been less than opaque is going to make recovery much harder.

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
It always will be denuded though. Spending public money for everyone is unpopular, whereas spending money to get your own kids the best is the opposite, so the private sector will always be better funded and better quality. Add to this the fact that none of the decision-makers on how much to fund the public option will have themselves or their kids in the public option and it gets even worse.

Puja

Not sure whether you are talking about healthcare or education. Either way, what’s your proposal on healthcare?

I am talking both simultaneously as my proposal on both would be the same - a two stream system means that rich people get a better standard of what should be a public right. Everyone should be in the same system, cause that way it'll get properly funded because the system the rich and influential care about will be the same one everyone uses.

Do note that I'm not in any way judging you for sending your kids to private school - had I the money, I would likely do the same (and might still, depending on funds/accessibility of good public secondary schools in my area). While the system exists, you should absolutely do the best for your children that you can. However it would be better and fairer for the country as a whole for the system not to exist.

Puja

I wasn't seeking your approval tbh

Unfortunately the country has consistently voted for low taxation (though obviously someone or something could change that!), so isn't prepared historically to put their money where your mouth is. Parallel systems- note not two tier- have the benefit of those who can afford it reduce the burden on the public systems whilst still contributing to the public purse, but I acknowledge the issues alongside that. From a healthcare point of view that has to be worth thinking through, rather than just saying its unworkable; in terms of the sort of healthcare I've used insurance for, its not been about queue jumping for critical care, but for elective type procedures in a frankly more comfortable and easier to access setting.
Simply put, I think a grown up conversation about meeting health needs has to have all options on the table. There needs as a minimum to be a consensus to take NHS funding out of political cycles, and a willingness from all in the NHS to engage in change. The current model is pretty badly broken, overstuffed with bureaucracy, and the wrong balance between national and regional; the way the NHS is normally used is not sustainable imo, and there needs to be a big focus on both deprivation and personal responsibility. The front line need to be equally engaged on change, without threatening jobs. Its massive though.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Trumps is saying he's seen it. So our government is in the position of having seen it, or the Americans aren't sharing what might be considered important information with us, or Trump is talking bollocks, any which way I don't see how they get to fail to clarify what's going on, though I do get why they don't want to clarify.

Have you been drinking?

Nope.

But which bit doesn't one infer?

If Trump has seen it why haven't we? If we have seen it why aren't we being honest about it? If Trump is talking bollocks why aren't we being honest about that?

I think it'd be helpful if we can have as much openness and transparency as possible, and a useful starting point for that might well be how this came about. And that will be needed because we are likely going to want some global as well as domestic changes on the back of all this, and how this came about will feed into what those changes might be. Trying to suggest and enact changes when your messaging has veered and/or been less than opaque is going to make recovery much harder.

Given that you traduce, rightly, every uttering from Trump's mouth, not sure its entirely reasonable to expect the government to respond to his gibberish and slam them if they don't. You are over-inferring.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:
Not sure whether you are talking about healthcare or education. Either way, what’s your proposal on healthcare?

I am talking both simultaneously as my proposal on both would be the same - a two stream system means that rich people get a better standard of what should be a public right. Everyone should be in the same system, cause that way it'll get properly funded because the system the rich and influential care about will be the same one everyone uses.

Do note that I'm not in any way judging you for sending your kids to private school - had I the money, I would likely do the same (and might still, depending on funds/accessibility of good public secondary schools in my area). While the system exists, you should absolutely do the best for your children that you can. However it would be better and fairer for the country as a whole for the system not to exist.

Puja

I wasn't seeking your approval tbh

Well, you have it anyway, which I'm sure is a huge relief.

Banquo wrote:Unfortunately the country has consistently voted for low taxation (though obviously someone or something could change that!), so isn't prepared historically to put their money where your mouth is. Parallel systems- note not two tier- have the benefit of those who can afford it reduce the burden on the public systems whilst still contributing to the public purse, but I acknowledge the issues alongside that. From a healthcare point of view that has to be worth thinking through, rather than just saying its unworkable; in terms of the sort of healthcare I've used insurance for, its not been about queue jumping for critical care, but for elective type procedures in a frankly more comfortable and easier to access setting.
Simply put, I think a grown up conversation about meeting health needs has to have all options on the table. There needs as a minimum to be a consensus to take NHS funding out of political cycles, and a willingness from all in the NHS to engage in change. The current model is pretty badly broken, overstuffed with bureaucracy, and the wrong balance between national and regional; the way the NHS is normally used is not sustainable imo, and there needs to be a big focus on both deprivation and personal responsibility. The front line need to be equally engaged on change, without threatening jobs. Its massive though.

You're not wrong on the country's voting record, although I suspect that there would be more political pressure to properly fund things if there was one option and one option only.

I would agree with NHS funding and control being taken out of political cycles (although even ringfencing a tax specifically for the NHS has the issue that it allows political parties to play silly buggers with the definition of what counts as the NHS depending on if they want to shift the burden up or down - social care, mental health, admin, facilities, social work, outpatient support, hospices, etc can all be shuffled in and out depending on what kind of size of bag of d*cks the government of the day feels like being). Maybe make the Department of Health a grand coalition issue, featuring MPs from across the parties, based on their proportionate share of Parliament. It's how Brexit should have been done and I'd be in favour of it for any issue that shouldn't really be party political but generally is.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
I am talking both simultaneously as my proposal on both would be the same - a two stream system means that rich people get a better standard of what should be a public right. Everyone should be in the same system, cause that way it'll get properly funded because the system the rich and influential care about will be the same one everyone uses.

Do note that I'm not in any way judging you for sending your kids to private school - had I the money, I would likely do the same (and might still, depending on funds/accessibility of good public secondary schools in my area). While the system exists, you should absolutely do the best for your children that you can. However it would be better and fairer for the country as a whole for the system not to exist.

Puja

I wasn't seeking your approval tbh

Well, you have it anyway, which I'm sure is a huge relief.

Banquo wrote:Unfortunately the country has consistently voted for low taxation (though obviously someone or something could change that!), so isn't prepared historically to put their money where your mouth is. Parallel systems- note not two tier- have the benefit of those who can afford it reduce the burden on the public systems whilst still contributing to the public purse, but I acknowledge the issues alongside that. From a healthcare point of view that has to be worth thinking through, rather than just saying its unworkable; in terms of the sort of healthcare I've used insurance for, its not been about queue jumping for critical care, but for elective type procedures in a frankly more comfortable and easier to access setting.
Simply put, I think a grown up conversation about meeting health needs has to have all options on the table. There needs as a minimum to be a consensus to take NHS funding out of political cycles, and a willingness from all in the NHS to engage in change. The current model is pretty badly broken, overstuffed with bureaucracy, and the wrong balance between national and regional; the way the NHS is normally used is not sustainable imo, and there needs to be a big focus on both deprivation and personal responsibility. The front line need to be equally engaged on change, without threatening jobs. Its massive though.

You're not wrong on the country's voting record, although I suspect that there would be more political pressure to properly fund things if there was one option and one option only.

I would agree with NHS funding and control being taken out of political cycles (although even ringfencing a tax specifically for the NHS has the issue that it allows political parties to play silly buggers with the definition of what counts as the NHS depending on if they want to shift the burden up or down - social care, mental health, admin, facilities, social work, outpatient support, hospices, etc can all be shuffled in and out depending on what kind of size of bag of d*cks the government of the day feels like being). Maybe make the Department of Health a grand coalition issue, featuring MPs from across the parties, based on their proportionate share of Parliament. It's how Brexit should have been done and I'd be in favour of it for any issue that shouldn't really be party political but generally is.

Puja

There is a problem in that the current NHS is a Frankenstein's monster of compromises , poor designs, and nonsense like how GPs are contracted and paid, plus how consultants operate their fiefdoms. But I suspect tilting at that windmill, at this time, is not on the table. You wouldn't start from here!

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
I am talking both simultaneously as my proposal on both would be the same - a two stream system means that rich people get a better standard of what should be a public right. Everyone should be in the same system, cause that way it'll get properly funded because the system the rich and influential care about will be the same one everyone uses.

Do note that I'm not in any way judging you for sending your kids to private school - had I the money, I would likely do the same (and might still, depending on funds/accessibility of good public secondary schools in my area). While the system exists, you should absolutely do the best for your children that you can. However it would be better and fairer for the country as a whole for the system not to exist.

Puja

I wasn't seeking your approval tbh

Well, you have it anyway, which I'm sure is a huge relief.

Banquo wrote:Unfortunately the country has consistently voted for low taxation (though obviously someone or something could change that!), so isn't prepared historically to put their money where your mouth is. Parallel systems- note not two tier- have the benefit of those who can afford it reduce the burden on the public systems whilst still contributing to the public purse, but I acknowledge the issues alongside that. From a healthcare point of view that has to be worth thinking through, rather than just saying its unworkable; in terms of the sort of healthcare I've used insurance for, its not been about queue jumping for critical care, but for elective type procedures in a frankly more comfortable and easier to access setting.
Simply put, I think a grown up conversation about meeting health needs has to have all options on the table. There needs as a minimum to be a consensus to take NHS funding out of political cycles, and a willingness from all in the NHS to engage in change. The current model is pretty badly broken, overstuffed with bureaucracy, and the wrong balance between national and regional; the way the NHS is normally used is not sustainable imo, and there needs to be a big focus on both deprivation and personal responsibility. The front line need to be equally engaged on change, without threatening jobs. Its massive though.

You're not wrong on the country's voting record, although I suspect that there would be more political pressure to properly fund things if there was one option and one option only.

I would agree with NHS funding and control being taken out of political cycles (although even ringfencing a tax specifically for the NHS has the issue that it allows political parties to play silly buggers with the definition of what counts as the NHS depending on if they want to shift the burden up or down - social care, mental health, admin, facilities, social work, outpatient support, hospices, etc can all be shuffled in and out depending on what kind of size of bag of d*cks the government of the day feels like being). Maybe make the Department of Health a grand coalition issue, featuring MPs from across the parties, based on their proportionate share of Parliament. It's how Brexit should have been done and I'd be in favour of it for any issue that shouldn't really be party political but generally is.

Puja

If you close of private healthcare, people will just travel for procedures. You’re not going to solve waiting times by making it 100% public.

And on schools, what about alternative schooling options? Surely the government doesn’t offer that for the same cost as “standard” education? And many children are much better off in alternative environments.

Back on topic, the government here have now split reporting. It’s now x cases in Budapest and y everywhere else. Which, considering they’re voters are everywhere Else and there are less than 100 deaths outside of Budapest... political games.

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: I wasn't seeking your approval tbh

Well, you have it anyway, which I'm sure is a huge relief.

Banquo wrote:Unfortunately the country has consistently voted for low taxation (though obviously someone or something could change that!), so isn't prepared historically to put their money where your mouth is. Parallel systems- note not two tier- have the benefit of those who can afford it reduce the burden on the public systems whilst still contributing to the public purse, but I acknowledge the issues alongside that. From a healthcare point of view that has to be worth thinking through, rather than just saying its unworkable; in terms of the sort of healthcare I've used insurance for, its not been about queue jumping for critical care, but for elective type procedures in a frankly more comfortable and easier to access setting.
Simply put, I think a grown up conversation about meeting health needs has to have all options on the table. There needs as a minimum to be a consensus to take NHS funding out of political cycles, and a willingness from all in the NHS to engage in change. The current model is pretty badly broken, overstuffed with bureaucracy, and the wrong balance between national and regional; the way the NHS is normally used is not sustainable imo, and there needs to be a big focus on both deprivation and personal responsibility. The front line need to be equally engaged on change, without threatening jobs. Its massive though.

You're not wrong on the country's voting record, although I suspect that there would be more political pressure to properly fund things if there was one option and one option only.

I would agree with NHS funding and control being taken out of political cycles (although even ringfencing a tax specifically for the NHS has the issue that it allows political parties to play silly buggers with the definition of what counts as the NHS depending on if they want to shift the burden up or down - social care, mental health, admin, facilities, social work, outpatient support, hospices, etc can all be shuffled in and out depending on what kind of size of bag of d*cks the government of the day feels like being). Maybe make the Department of Health a grand coalition issue, featuring MPs from across the parties, based on their proportionate share of Parliament. It's how Brexit should have been done and I'd be in favour of it for any issue that shouldn't really be party political but generally is.

Puja

If you close of private healthcare, people will just travel for procedures. You’re not going to solve waiting times by making it 100% public.

And on schools, what about alternative schooling options? Surely the government doesn’t offer that for the same cost as “standard” education? And many children are much better off in alternative environments.

Back on topic, the government here have now split reporting. It’s now x cases in Budapest and y everywhere else. Which, considering they’re voters are everywhere Else and there are less than 100 deaths outside of Budapest... political games.

Unfortunately you'd also lose a chunk of consultants as well- I know very few who don't have a chunky private list.

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: I wasn't seeking your approval tbh

Well, you have it anyway, which I'm sure is a huge relief.

Banquo wrote:Unfortunately the country has consistently voted for low taxation (though obviously someone or something could change that!), so isn't prepared historically to put their money where your mouth is. Parallel systems- note not two tier- have the benefit of those who can afford it reduce the burden on the public systems whilst still contributing to the public purse, but I acknowledge the issues alongside that. From a healthcare point of view that has to be worth thinking through, rather than just saying its unworkable; in terms of the sort of healthcare I've used insurance for, its not been about queue jumping for critical care, but for elective type procedures in a frankly more comfortable and easier to access setting.
Simply put, I think a grown up conversation about meeting health needs has to have all options on the table. There needs as a minimum to be a consensus to take NHS funding out of political cycles, and a willingness from all in the NHS to engage in change. The current model is pretty badly broken, overstuffed with bureaucracy, and the wrong balance between national and regional; the way the NHS is normally used is not sustainable imo, and there needs to be a big focus on both deprivation and personal responsibility. The front line need to be equally engaged on change, without threatening jobs. Its massive though.

You're not wrong on the country's voting record, although I suspect that there would be more political pressure to properly fund things if there was one option and one option only.

I would agree with NHS funding and control being taken out of political cycles (although even ringfencing a tax specifically for the NHS has the issue that it allows political parties to play silly buggers with the definition of what counts as the NHS depending on if they want to shift the burden up or down - social care, mental health, admin, facilities, social work, outpatient support, hospices, etc can all be shuffled in and out depending on what kind of size of bag of d*cks the government of the day feels like being). Maybe make the Department of Health a grand coalition issue, featuring MPs from across the parties, based on their proportionate share of Parliament. It's how Brexit should have been done and I'd be in favour of it for any issue that shouldn't really be party political but generally is.

Puja

If you close of private healthcare, people will just travel for procedures. You’re not going to solve waiting times by making it 100% public.

And on schools, what about alternative schooling options? Surely the government doesn’t offer that for the same cost as “standard” education? And many children are much better off in alternative environments.

Back on topic, the government here have now split reporting. It’s now x cases in Budapest and y everywhere else. Which, considering they’re voters are everywhere Else and there are less than 100 deaths outside of Budapest... political games.

As Banquo says - you wouldn't start from here. The system is a mess and I'm not proposing just abruptly shutting the private option. However, I would have shutting them as a future ambition and be taking steps (like increasing the tax burden on the private options, increased pay/bonuses for medics who don't take private cases, etc.) to move to a position where it was possible.

What do you mean by alternative schooling options? Are you talking special needs or religious or streaming by intelligence or what?

Puja

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Have you been drinking?

Nope.

But which bit doesn't one infer?

If Trump has seen it why haven't we? If we have seen it why aren't we being honest about it? If Trump is talking bollocks why aren't we being honest about that?

I think it'd be helpful if we can have as much openness and transparency as possible, and a useful starting point for that might well be how this came about. And that will be needed because we are likely going to want some global as well as domestic changes on the back of all this, and how this came about will feed into what those changes might be. Trying to suggest and enact changes when your messaging has veered and/or been less than opaque is going to make recovery much harder.

Given that you traduce, rightly, every uttering from Trump's mouth, not sure its entirely reasonable to expect the government to respond to his gibberish and slam them if they don't. You are over-inferring.

I don't need our government to respond on the size of Trump's hands, inaugural crowd, whether he slept with a porn actress, whether people should drink bleach, whether sweeping forest floors is a good way to prevent forest fires, whether Mexico is purposefully sending rapists and serial killers to the USA...

I'm not asking them to respond to everything Trump says. But I am on this given it's important and specific around the origins of this disease, and that will feed into what we'll want to go and want to ask for in changes from China and others as well as changes ourselves. And for me it's going to be easier to do that the more we have a reputation of being open and honest and not pander to the conspiracy crowd.

I don't think they should slate Trump, not because Trump isn't a prat but because he's the leader of a foreign nation. They should respectfully disagree, concede Trump is correct (whether or not on a broken clock basis), or at least be very clear on what and how they think the origins are. I was listening to Ben Wallace earlier and his answer to whether he'd seen the 5-eyes security alliance report suggesting China had covered up and made worse this outbreak after having developed the virus in a lab in Wuhan was to say now wasn't the time time for an answer, and he wasn't going to speculate, and quite frankly that is disingenuous, he's not being asked to speculate, he's been asked to comment on what would be specific intelligence reports, and if he's not going to comment he's basically saying the British people don't at this time need to know about the origins of a disease having an enormous impact on the lives of everyone in the country. Maybe some people will take the view we just need to trust the government and row in behind whatever their assessment is on what we need to know right now and indeed pick this up after the event, or at least at a later stage during the event, I don't take that view, whatever the origins of this disease we should be getting truthful answers as of now - and that would hold even if Trump hadn't said a damn thing

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Nope.

But which bit doesn't one infer?

If Trump has seen it why haven't we? If we have seen it why aren't we being honest about it? If Trump is talking bollocks why aren't we being honest about that?

I think it'd be helpful if we can have as much openness and transparency as possible, and a useful starting point for that might well be how this came about. And that will be needed because we are likely going to want some global as well as domestic changes on the back of all this, and how this came about will feed into what those changes might be. Trying to suggest and enact changes when your messaging has veered and/or been less than opaque is going to make recovery much harder.

Given that you traduce, rightly, every uttering from Trump's mouth, not sure its entirely reasonable to expect the government to respond to his gibberish and slam them if they don't. You are over-inferring.

I don't need our government to respond on the size of Trump's hands, inaugural crowd, whether he slept with a porn actress, whether people should drink bleach, whether sweeping forest floors is a good way to prevent forest fires, whether Mexico is purposefully sending rapists and serial killers to the USA...

I'm not asking them to respond to everything Trump says. But I am on this given it's important and specific around the origins of this disease, and that will feed into what we'll want to go and want to ask for in changes from China and others as well as changes ourselves. And for me it's going to be easier to do that the more we have a reputation of being open and honest and not pander to the conspiracy crowd.

I don't think they should slate Trump, not because Trump isn't a prat but because he's the leader of a foreign nation. They should respectfully disagree, concede Trump is correct (whether or not on a broken clock basis), or at least be very clear on what and how they think the origins are. I was listening to Ben Wallace earlier and his answer to whether he'd seen the 5-eyes security alliance report suggesting China had covered up and made worse this outbreak after having developed the virus in a lab in Wuhan was to say now wasn't the time time for an answer, and he wasn't going to speculate, and quite frankly that is disingenuous, he's not being asked to speculate, he's been asked to comment on what would be specific intelligence reports, and if he's not going to comment he's basically saying the British people don't at this time need to know about the origins of a disease having an enormous impact on the lives of everyone in the country. Maybe some people will take the view we just need to trust the government and row in behind whatever their assessment is on what we need to know right now and indeed pick this up after the event, or at least at a later stage during the event, I don't take that view, whatever the origins of this disease we should be getting truthful answers as of now - and that would hold even if Trump hadn't said a damn thing

Do you feel strongly about this
Surprised its taken you 3 days to get this riled, but thanks for finally sharing the context. What has Germany said about it, out of interest?

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote: Well, you have it anyway, which I'm sure is a huge relief.


You're not wrong on the country's voting record, although I suspect that there would be more political pressure to properly fund things if there was one option and one option only.

I would agree with NHS funding and control being taken out of political cycles (although even ringfencing a tax specifically for the NHS has the issue that it allows political parties to play silly buggers with the definition of what counts as the NHS depending on if they want to shift the burden up or down - social care, mental health, admin, facilities, social work, outpatient support, hospices, etc can all be shuffled in and out depending on what kind of size of bag of d*cks the government of the day feels like being). Maybe make the Department of Health a grand coalition issue, featuring MPs from across the parties, based on their proportionate share of Parliament. It's how Brexit should have been done and I'd be in favour of it for any issue that shouldn't really be party political but generally is.

Puja

If you close of private healthcare, people will just travel for procedures. You’re not going to solve waiting times by making it 100% public.

And on schools, what about alternative schooling options? Surely the government doesn’t offer that for the same cost as “standard” education? And many children are much better off in alternative environments.

Back on topic, the government here have now split reporting. It’s now x cases in Budapest and y everywhere else. Which, considering they’re voters are everywhere Else and there are less than 100 deaths outside of Budapest... political games.

As Banquo says - you wouldn't start from here. The system is a mess and I'm not proposing just abruptly shutting the private option. However, I would have shutting them as a future ambition and be taking steps (like increasing the tax burden on the private options, increased pay/bonuses for medics who don't take private cases, etc.) to move to a position where it was possible.

What do you mean by alternative schooling options? Are you talking special needs or religious or streaming by intelligence or what?

Puja

People will still want to pay for better service, just now they’ll be going abroad for it and taking money out of the economy.

Alternative education means Waldorf(Steiner), Montessori, etc. they encourage critical and independent thinking and provide a different classroom environment better for many kids.