How Dumb can the Government get?

WTF?_2

dopester wrote: »

I had no idea new guidelines had been passed... but anyway.. expect more and more of these cutbacks, because how can the NHS continue treating all ailments when it will have to more allocate whatever future funding it does receive, as less revenues come in to the Gov's coffers.

No problem finding tens of billions of pounds for the banks though, thankfully.

Wouldn't want them to have to be accountable for their bad bets. It's bad enough that most bankers probably won't get their customary huge bonuses this year. A bit more pain and suffering for cancer victims is a small price to pay for keeping the pigs with their snouts in the trough from being taken off to slaughter.

moneysaving_pharmacist

dopester wrote: »

I had no idea new guidelines had been passed... but anyway.. expect more and more of these cutbacks, because how can the NHS continue treating all ailments when it will have to more allocate whatever future funding it does receive, as less revenues come in to the Gov's coffers.

The guidance from NICE is preliminary and is new guidance, rather than updating existing guidelines. It is worth noting that these drugs are not approved for use in Scotland either, and their equivalent to NICE tends to approve more drugs.

These drugs for kidney cancer are extremely expensive - about £30k a year, and extend life by a few months to a year. They are not a cure. The NHS has a finite amount of money, and tough decisions have to be made at times on how best to spend that money. We Brits seem to have an insatiable appetite for health care, and however much money is put in to the NHS won't meet demand.

carolt

dudleyboy wrote: »

That's it. I'm sticking my neck out and saying I'm voting Lib Dem from here on in. Vince Cable has proven to me time and again during interviews over the past 12 months that he has the measure of the situation. The man has not yet said a single thing that I don't agree with and while he is not the leader of his party yet (nothing against Nick Clegg but he's not said much about anything), there's only one man in politics that I've currently got any faith in.

For me, voting has always been akin to being presented with a list of methods of execution and being asked which you'd prefer to be k!lled by: hanging, lethal injection, electric chair, death by a million paper cuts, etc.

Finally somebody who might actually be able to do some good. Not that anyone will listen, but at least someone is saying what needs to be said.

Absolutely. Lib Dems are getting my vote too - thanks to Vince Cable. He does seem to be the only senior politician with a grasp of what is actually going on with the economy, the courage to say so, and no fingers in any troughs I know of - yet.

NDG - I have so far agreed with you on every post you've ever posted, more or less, (apologies if I've just killed your credibility saying so ) but CANNOT agree with you that Thatcher was good for the country. (Or at least other than the fact that alternative comedy was much funnier and youth culture had a bit more bite and purpose than it appears to have now.) Labour have, sadly, been pretty pants too, but one feels this was despite their principles, rather than because of them. :rolleyes:

lostinrates

moneysaving_pharmacist wrote: »

. The NHS has a finite amount of money, and tough decisions have to be made at times on how best to spend that money. We Brits seem to have an insatiable appetite for health care, and however much money is put in to the NHS won't meet demand.

Absolutely, I agree, but I do feel that sometimes priorities are skewed (as someone who has private treatment as well as NHS treatment). It galls to see the NHS spending money on things like pinning ears back (I haooen to think sticky out ears are quite cute...and certainly not dangerous that I know of) but not treatments which are expensive but really do improve physical quality of life (I daresay those with serious health problems wish they looked better too, but have learned to prioritise!) Likewise, when the government is alloting funds I feel the NHS is a more worthy cause than continuing to ensure a generation is priced out of the housing market!

I've been thinking about this, and the only way I can see it being sensible is if the mortgage repayments are funded or assisted by some form of grant/benefit then the debt is added up and either repaid or payable from the equity on the death of the recipient or sale of the house. If a 100% mortage or similar is in question then the house becomes part of social housing stock and not availabe for 'right to buy' scheme'. I'm sure thats very flawed simplistic thinking though too.

ruggedtoast

So while the Chinese, the Indians, the Europeans and the Brazilians are investing in skills, industrial out put and sustainable growth, Gordon is going to blow billions of taxpayer quids propping up dodgy loans he was too inept to stop the banks making last time around which will result in a dysfunctional bond market and raging inflation.

Yeah thats bound to work. Easy Street here we come.

neverdespairgirl

carolt wrote: »

NDG - I have so far agreed with you on every post you've ever posted, more or less, (apologies if I've just killed your credibility saying so ) but CANNOT agree with you that Thatcher was good for the country.

Fair enough, we can agree to disagree!

Obviously I don't remember it, but the 1970s seem to have been a royal mess.

ManAtHome

Yes, the 70s were a holy mess unless you were in the power workers, miners, or transport workers unions. The annual pay round was all about the aforementioned trying to out-do each other, and the rest of us could eat cake. Probably why Thatch was voted in - and (IMHO) did a good job in the first term, then rapidly ran out of things to interfere with (applies to all governments we've had in my lifetime).

moanymoany

Post appeared twice.

moanymoany

BTLNEWbie wrote: »

Did they not hand over a flourishing economey, only for TB to waste it on all those spin doctors and quangos.

We had been in the grip of a recession that saw house prices plunge - this was the 'last house price crash' people keep referring to.

The pressure to buy your council house and then take out loans to put in new kitchen's and bathroom's meant people lost their houses because it was the second mortgagees who took out the repossession proceedings, the first mortgage would be maintained when people were unemployed - as many millions were.

Record numbers of companies going to the wall. Record marriage breakdowns, record re-possession numbers, it was a terrible time when no-one felt secure.

And don't get me started on the 15% interest rate!

jamescredmond

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Fair enough, we can agree to disagree!

Obviously I don't remember it, but the 1970s seem to have been a royal mess.

I started working in the late 70's and it was def. messy.

thatch arrived in may '79, almost by default.

had lab gone to the country in oct '78, indications were that lab would win / hung parliament.

lab was allready on the way to achieving econ. stability, having endured some pretty lousy disasters (IMF, 26% inflation, etc.)

but then came the winter of discontent, with mass strikes. lab's fate was sealed.

I was a Young Socialist at the time, and can well remember how trotskyite extremists, who had little in common with lab's core beliefs, infiltrated the party at local level and bullied/intimidated the saner of us.

it was these same 'entryists' who helped lab out of power and kept the party unelectable, until kinnock finally bit the bullet and expelled the militant tendancy.

militancy, with a long-term view of destabilising UK politics before a glorious revolution, was largely responsible for stuffing lab.

thatch has much to thank them for.