Click here to register on OneGuyFromBarlick|2|1
Go to Page
  First Page  Previous Page    24  25  26  [27]  28  29   Next Page  Last Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart


36804 Posts
Posted -  28/04/2011  :  07:37
Political comment is a high risk activity on the site these days so I thought I'd try again to give those who are interested in politics a safe haven!


Stanley Challenger Graham




Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk
Replies
Author
Go to Page
  First Page  Previous Page    24  25  26  [27]  28  29   Next Page  Last Page
 
Bradders
Senior Member


1880 Posts
Posted - 08/09/2011 : 23:20
It seems that the following email has been sent to all Tory and Lib Dem M.P.s...today  ...Honestly ! ...

"Dear Colleagues

We will be sending you an invitation to Labour Party Conference Events shortly. Most grateful, From the Office of
Geoffrey Robinson MP
Chairman
New Statesman.........."

........and at a cost to the Taxpayer too ! (it was apparently sent from his Parliamentary Office )

....note the bit about  "New Statesman" in which G.R. has a financial interest (allegedly).

You never know , some might turn up........

 

 


BRADDERS BLUESINGER Go to Top of Page
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart


36804 Posts
Posted - 09/09/2011 : 07:09
Earth to Ossie! Are you receiving? OECD downgrades UK annual growth again to .9% and remember this is based on historical data, takes no note of possible Events Dear Boy.

Obama has the message and has proposed a huge package of tax cuts and spending (0ver $450billion) to reinvigorate the US economy. Right move but this is a political trap for the Republicans based on the next election. Big problem here is that if the American Right follows historical precedent they will advocate Protectionism. Watch out for US withdrawing from Tariff Quotas and putting up import barriers which will damage global trade in the short and middle term and in the long term will damage the US as well.

All this has repercussions for UK economy. Time for the Coalition to speak up and at least admit that they recognise the dangers.

Proposals to ban referal fees to reduce the cost of insurance.  Right move but will the lawyers and the people who have been raking in the fees lie back and give up? Or will they find a new wheeze. Whatever, don't hold your breath for premium reductions.


Stanley Challenger Graham




Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk Go to Top of Page
Tardis
Regular Member


453 Posts
Posted - 09/09/2011 : 10:30
Bradders:

If I could go private I would, unfortunately my condition is such that my only personal care choice under the UK system is the NHS (Private doesn't do chronic beyond a certain stage and that is implicit in the insurance). I am sure that your children fulfil an adequate role within the system, and let me be very clear about this, the NHS system is a sum of all the vested interests and does not deliver patient outcomes. The people who work within it are not publically accountable, and our current system "rapes" other countries for their doctors.

If the NHS is the envy of the world, why is the UK the only one with it?

If I take America as an example where there is Medicaid and Medicare for those who can not afford.

The Health care provided is second to none, and yes you have to pay for it through insurance, but the other side is that those doctors can be sued for malpractice and disqualified. A sort of quid pro quo. In the UK we have...this is your GP, and this is the choice of hospital (not the choice of care). On top of which the NHS costs more per patient than the US, so why is that? Would something like the Staffordshire NHS incident have got so far in the US?


Go to Top of Page
Tardis
Regular Member


453 Posts
Posted - 09/09/2011 : 10:41
I think you must be using the wrong transmitter StanleyWink


Go to Top of Page
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart


36804 Posts
Posted - 09/09/2011 : 14:39
Michael, we aren't the only country in the world. Do some digging. As for the US you've evidently never looked at their system. Medicare and medicaid are a joke. The uncle of a friend of mine was diagnosed with cancer so he committed suicide rather than bankrupt his family, this is not uncommon.


Stanley Challenger Graham




Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk Go to Top of Page
Tizer
VIP Member


5150 Posts
Posted - 09/09/2011 : 14:55
quote:
Tardis wrote:
...our current system "rapes" other countries for their doctors.


I guess we must be `raping' other countries for their bankers too. Those countries will thank us then for imposing higher taxes and sending their bankers back to them!   Wink

quote:
Tardis wrote:
If the NHS is the envy of the world, why is the UK the only one with it?
Perhaps because we are the only ones who care enough about all our citizens, not just the well off?


Go to Top of Page
Bradders
Senior Member


1880 Posts
Posted - 10/09/2011 : 01:46


quote:
Tardis wrote:
Bradders:

If I could go private I would, unfortunately my condition is such that my only personal care choice under the UK system is the NHS (Private doesn't do chronic beyond a certain stage and that is implicit in the insurance).
No Tardis ......When I said Private  , I meant PRIVATE  (personally funded), not insurance based ....BUPA etc...

I have no knowledge of your condition , but I'm guessing that there are few countries in the world where you would get better long term treatment  "for free"......

Please don't forget that we have ALL contributed via National Insurance deductions from our earnings, and most of us (probably millions) haven't claimed much at all.....

Edited by - Bradders on 10/09/2011 02:11:00 AM


BRADDERS BLUESINGER Go to Top of Page
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart


36804 Posts
Posted - 10/09/2011 : 05:35
Ossie siezes on the comments of the new head of the IMF wherever they suit him but ignores the perts that do not. Ed Balls made a telling comment, he said that from his experience the conversations in private would be a tad more pointed than the public statement aimed at not damaging public confidence. She knows that our biggest trading partner, the EU, is hovering on the brink of collapse. I have always supported closer cooperation in Europe but the politicians have destroyed the basis of cooperation by France and Germany attempting to gain control of finance without first  erecting a political structure, a federal Europe, which would have made the single currency viable. We are watching this mistake come to fruition. Par for the course, greed and the desire for power have damaged logical policies.

I have been arguing (with evidence) for the last year that the Coalition programme of cuts was too fast, badly directed and doomed to fail.  They are repeating the mistakes the Tories made in the inter-war years. External events are now gathering against us as well. We need a rethink immediately.What are CamClegg doing? Concentrating on internal fighting and forcing unpopular legislation through Parliament to roll back as much of the Welfare State back as they can get away with before they are rumbled. Clegg is worse that Cameron because what he is supporting is directly contrary to LigDem policies so he is not only damaging the wider society but his own party. Again, it's all par for the course, they took the Thirty Pieces of Silver when they joined the coalition in the shape of a share of 'power'. It was a betrayal of mil;lions of decent Liberals.

Over the last 15 years we have had some of the worst governance, in all areas, I have ever seen. It is too late to repair the damage in the life of one Parliament. The only way out is a programme of national reconstruction which will need real statesmanship and sustained effort. I see no sign of it emerging. Even if it appeared tomorrow we would face ten years minimum of austerity.Nobody is admitting this.

In 1945 a Labour government embarked on this course. The miracle is that they also produced the basis for efficient infrastructure, the Welfare State and vastly improved housing. They call it democratic socialism, acting for the benefit of society not the privileged few. Read the history!


Stanley Challenger Graham




Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk Go to Top of Page
Tardis
Regular Member


453 Posts
Posted - 10/09/2011 : 10:28
Bradders, I would if I could

When I went private to see a consultant, he said he had done all he could

The system does not allow me to continue to go private. It is illegal. I have to join the queue.

My insurance gave up sometime ago, and any new policy does not allow "pre-existing conditions".

To all the others, no one has provided another example elsewhere, and I see no reason to accept what there is, when it could patently be better.

Edited by - Tardis on 10/09/2011 13:27:33


Go to Top of Page
Tardis
Regular Member


453 Posts
Posted - 10/09/2011 : 13:31
If we had maybe raped other countries of their bankers they may be thanking us. Doctors, however, are fully trained resources that the UK activity denies those countries.

With regard to National Insurance, I'm well aware of the Budget that introduced them, and the fact that it was supposed to pay for sickness benefit, and pensions for those in the most need.

I know of the adaptations of the scheme in 1948 to deliver the NHS, and universal pensions.

There are of course many changes inbetween. Anyone ever been asked by the NHS to provide their National Insurance number for treatment?


Go to Top of Page
Tardis
Regular Member


453 Posts
Posted - 10/09/2011 : 14:08
What I think is interesting about the thread is the way that opposition to my comments seems to centre around an either/or option.

I have never said that I oppose health care free at the point of delivery. I have only said that I do not believe that the NHS is best placed to deliver that strategy. The rest of the world provides examples that produce cheaper and better health outcomes with free at the point of use health care.

It is probably this "noise" that somehow spikes debate.

In my experience we do not have a National Health Service, we may have a Regional Illness Service. Reactive if you poke it hard enough. Shout too loud and you can be described as rude and ungrateful.

The only people who actually "work for" the NHS are the nurses and the managers. All the others are self employed contractors free to also work in the private sector, and that other work can take priority over their NHS work.

All GP surgeries are businesses set up to make a profit from 1948. So how do they make a profit? Is that profit ever reinvested in health care (doctors, nurses), rather than equipment that allows a practice to take more state money and generate more profit?

If everyone on a doctor's list decided to seek an appointment they might be lucky to get one within a year. Think of the time lag on any necessary follow up. Surprisingly if you see your GP privately he would be available wihin 24 hours in my experience.

If, however, central funding reduced the numbers on the list this would effectively reduce a doctor's salary and increase the number of doctors in a surgery which has an impact on appointments available. (response).

One of the rules, that the GP contract may have removed, was that GP's were paid extra for writing prescriptions. So you have a private sector worker taking money from the state who can get more by writing more prescriptions (anyone ever tried to get a prescription for more than 4 weeks medication if you are chronically sick?). Is that not a conflict of interest?

That self same GP contract paid GP's more for delivering less, especially the out of hours cover. I understand the GP contract was written by the BMA (Union for doctors) and yet no one flagged this conflict of interest.

Ever noticed that if you go to see a GP, you get to see a GP, and he may then refer you to have screening blood tests? Then you have to go back to see the GP to get the results and any recommendations?

One of the things that came out of the US study was anyone going to see their GP there has routine blood tests before they see the GP. All these things are stored on your medical history and for long term issues it does become much easier to spot the trends. So why does the UK system introduce this delay. Could it be that UK GP's get paid for appointments?

Surely by removing about 50% of appointments this would have a knock on effect on appointment availability?

Also ever noticed how you seem to always see the doctor when really you could be seen by the nurse. Could it be that a practice gets more money if you see the GP rather than the nurse.

There won't be many people on here with this kind of experience, but I have a regular Consultant (necessary for monitoring deterioation and putting me on the list) and when I recently had to see a different consultant to get something else done which may have been a secondary result of this condition, this new operating consultant looked at me askance when I suggested that he should talk to the other consultant for more detailed information about my condition. He was this department's consultant, and my other consultant ran his own department.

Then there is the changing of GP's when you are chronically sick, and the battles you have to initially fight just to get a continuation of medication, even if you provide proof of that treatment. This is because if the practice can get you "diagnosed" it obviously gets more money, rather than just accepting that the condition was identified by another Health Trust.

The thing that truely went against the 1948 ideals, however, must be the forcing by HMRC of all Health Trusts to register for Corporation Tax, which is only paid if a business makes a profit (a profit of tax payers funding simply cycling back to the Treasury and denying health treatment investment?)

Too many vested interests, and far more heat than light.


Go to Top of Page
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart


36804 Posts
Posted - 12/09/2011 : 05:58
Cameron out of the country again polishing his 'statesman image' in Russia. Meanwhile, screens are red again this morning as markets continue to doubt political will to invest in growth exacerbated by cracks appearing in EU central bank funding. Ossie comes up with a mini U-turn which he claims is massive boost to the UK economy, in reality all he has done is bring forward minor investments, this is not new money, just shuffling the deck chairs. The only hopeful sign I see in this is that at least he has recognised the danger. I suspect the financial advisors at the Treasury and the Bof E will very quickly tell him that this is too little too late.

The preliminary report on bank restructuring is due today. Leaks suggest it will recommend a firewall between casino and main street banking. Problem is going to be the timescale and the core ethics of the banks. Vince Cable was quite right when he accused them of blackmail. Threatening to move  from UK and raising doubts about ability to lend. I heard a survey of interest rates on loans to small businesses the other day and they varied from 19% to 30%.  In other words, in worst case a small borrower would be better off using his/her credit card. Business support? There is a deep malaise in the banking system and this report is not going to cure it. At the very least, any measures tocut off main strett banking from casino profits will mean that more money will be extracted from ordinary customers, the argument has been that casino profits subsidise the core banking. Not good news whichever way you look at it.

One thing that has always puzzled me. Looking at the scale of credit card borrowing and the interest rates charged, where has all that money gone? Could it have been used to finance the more risky investments?


Stanley Challenger Graham




Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk Go to Top of Page
Tardis
Regular Member


453 Posts
Posted - 12/09/2011 : 10:49
I note from the proposed banking reform that there is no plan to ease the legislation brought in by Brown that basically stops the formation of any new banks in the UK. No new banks means no small lenders at the bottom of the market that would force the bigger banks to rejig their operations to combat.

I can see the arguments on both sides of the banking debate but think that Vince the Cable should be divorced from the issue as his pronouncements of the nuclear option just make me wonder if he is a proper and reliable politician, but the fundamental problems are ones of competition, and some banks being too big to fail.

I note that Ireland is posting growth of nearly 2%, so that might actually help both RBS and the HBOS bit of Lloyds with their bad debts in that country.

Also of note is the Banks defence that Northern Rock was not a casino bank.


Go to Top of Page
Bradders
Senior Member


1880 Posts
Posted - 12/09/2011 : 13:14
Wonder if Osborne will go before Huhne...commons statement from George this afternoon.....re cocaine and other naughty stuff....awkward.!

PS  Cameron probably happy that  "blame re. Coulson"  is shifting .....But  !

Edited by - Bradders on 13/09/2011 12:54:50 AM


BRADDERS BLUESINGER Go to Top of Page
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart


36804 Posts
Posted - 13/09/2011 : 04:29
Depends on your definition of casino bank. They expanded far too fast and took on dodgy mortgages without checking incomes and failed. This was the gamble. Lloyds will be split up and a new bank formed.

Brad, Coulson hasn't gone away.  What struck me was the exchange in PMQs yesterday between Balls and Osborne. Balls did the sensible thing and apologised for his part in allowing the banks unfettered freedom. Osborne replied by putting the genesis of the banking crisis at 'ten years ago', ie. during New Labour. He should read his history, no party is free from the stigma of failing to regulate the banks. The start of the latest failure was in the 1960s both here and in the US. At the same time relations between politics and the financial markets were allowed to become incestuous and this continues to this day.

What bothers me is the £7billion tp £9billion that will be added to the banks reserves over the next ten years to bring their assets up to 10% of liabilities. This money will be hard cash and locked in the banks vaults. This is money taken out of the general economy and there is no guarantee that the banks will spend it. Far better if it was held as a development fund by the treasury and used for infrastructure improvements, the Treasury acting as guarantor for the banks from a contingency fund. Under the new regulations the banks will be unlikely to need bailing out and even if one did fail it would be on a far smaller scale than 2008.

Bottom line is that none of this addresses the basic problem, the greed and incompetence at the core of banking. That will take far longer to repair.

Meanwhile, in another part of the forest....  The screens are red again as the market accepts that Greece will default. UK banks have an estimated £13billion liability in dodgy bonds. France and Germany far more. Add to this the effect on the other Mediterranean countries and the Eoro system is going to come under immense pressure. They are our biggest export market and it is exports that Ossie is relying on. Sooner or later he is going to have to address UK domestic consumption.  Bottom line for the electors is ten years of hard times at least on best case, worst case id double dip and yhis is looking more and more possible. It ain't over yet! External Events Dear Boy.

Sorry for the gloom........


Stanley Challenger Graham




Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk Go to Top of Page
Topic is 51 Pages Long:
Go to Page
  First Page  Previous Page    24  25  26  [27]  28  29   Next Page  Last Page
 


Set us as your default homepage Bookmark us Privacy   Copyright 2004-2011 www.oneguyfrombarlick.co.uk All Rights Reserved. Design by: Frost SkyPortal.net Go To Top Of Page

Page load time - 0.734