Election campaign kicks off

Generali

Thrugelmir wrote: »

You're right. At any time they could have switched off the ventilator, the dialysis machine or any of the 14 drug pumps that were keeping her alive. As they took her to a point where the body had no work to do except fight the infection. Every 5 minutes was a hairs breath improvement in her chances of living. But they didn't. As the ICU was staffed by true professionals who cared. Their faith was rewarded.

Until you've lived the experience................

The attitude that you can't put a price on a life is very dangerous as high profile, 'glamorous' stuff ends up being treated and what is neglected is out of sight (old people dying of thirst in their own faeces).

If we were a bit more honest about things and realised that medical treatment has a price then perhaps we would spend money a bit better.

As to the implication that unless I've had a loved on at death's door then I don't understand, actually I understand entirely. Of course we want public resources directed to us.

mayonnaise

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

A very rapid mobilisation of the previously apathetic disaffected young will happen and change this country for the better.

Yes, they will all be joining the revolution as soon as they finish queuing for an iphone6.

N1AK

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Have you worked for a government spin outfit?!

No, though it's pleasing to know someone thinks I have the skills for it. Given your extremely poor showing in defending your initial point it's clear that you couldn't spin a top.

If it was a shoddy attempt at implying bias then, were it true, I rather doubt I'd be calling the current governments policies immoral in other threads on here

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Do you know as at the 2008 crash and government decision to borrow to secure the bank system...

I'm not sure why you think I'm your personal fact finder, or why you think I'm obliged to find facts to counter your own fact-less claims.

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

I thought it was generally accepted that global credit bubble burst was not due to individual governments

You're mistaking my point. I have no intention of claiming that the financial crisis wasn't global, or very serious. What I am saying is that the Labour government chose to borrow heavily during the boom times, which left us with only bad options during the crash.

To risk an, accurate in my opinion, analogy: The Labour government was like a family who for over a decade saw big wage increases year on year. Rather than saving during this period of good fortune they got a bigger house on a bigger mortgage, bought some German saloons on credit, flew the family business to Orlando etc. Their debts were getting bigger, but only slightly compared to income, and they had no savings. However, as long as they kept getting those pay rises every year, they could sort it out later. Then suddenly in 2008 Mrs Labour loses her job because of the financial crash. Now the family has debts, interest, big mortgage payments etc but only has half the income they used to. They can't spend the savings they don't have, so they have to sell one of the cars, forget holidays, eat out less, Timmy couldn't go on the school trip, mum had to give up the masters course she had been doing, they cancelled the gym memberships etc and even then had to borrow even more to avoid losing the house! They did all that, and a couple of years later Mrs Labour gets a new job and things start picking up, so they handled the crisis itself well BUT if they had built up less debt, and saved a little during the decade of good times they wouldn't have had to make all of the tough calls when things went wrong.

wotsthat

Thrugelmir wrote: »

A friend of mine was feeling under the weather in April. Touch of flu everyone thought. One evening she went into hospital and they kept her in under observation. Within 6 hours she was in intensive care. Where she remained for 3 and half weeks. To see the resources that they use to keep someone alive. Staffing ( one to one nursing 24/7), equipment, drugs was an eye opener. In fact so much equipment there was no where to sit by the bedside. She survived. You can't put a price on some ones life.

However it's something I'm happy to pay even if I never benefit directly myself.

I was careful to say that my lifestyle and family history only suggests a reasonably long and healthy life without a protracted departure - I didn't guarantee it! I'd prefer that the NHS was privatised and premiums calculated based on risk - personally I'd save a fortune.

Clearly a number of people wouldn't be able to afford premiums and they'd either have to reduce their risk factors, find more income or, as now, stick their hands out and wait for money to fall from the money tree. There would need to be a long overdue debate about who pays and who doesn't instead of people just waffling on about trying to squeeze a few quid out of whatever group they've decided to blame.

'Free' stuff just encourages inefficient use whether it be water, petrol or healthcare.

N1AK

Thrugelmir wrote: »

You're right. At any time they could have switched off the ventilator, the dialysis machine or any of the 14 drug pumps that were keeping her alive.

Generali's absolutely right. When the NHS saved this person they spent considerable resources from a finite pool. That money is then not available to, for example, purchase new expensive cancer treatment drugs that might have saved other lives.

None of which diminishes the dedication of the people who treated the patient. It is however, entirely wrong, to imagine that we don't put a price on human lives. It happens constantly in so many ways:

• Convential power plants (coal, gas) cause considerably more deaths than nuclear or renewable. We don't replace more of it because of cost.
• Far fewer people with mental issues would commit suicide if we increased funding on support for them.
• People couldn't throw themselves in front of tube trains if we changed all platforms to keep people off tracks until trains arrived. We haven't due to costs.
• And on, and on, and on.

No matter how much we spend there is always something that we could do to save more lives if we spent more. No matter what we spend money on, even saving lives, there is always something else we didn't spend money on instead that could have saved lives instead.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

How this personally effects you is neither here nor there and was never meant to be. Certainly no one is jealous of you. What an absurd thing to say.

It's not me the jealousy is aimed at. It's the non existent army of pensioners who roam the planet like nomads in their £50k motorhomes searching out the best golf courses before ending the day with a bath in champagne.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It seems you are arguing with what I have said not because you disagree as such (afterall, you can't). Rather you are arguing with my point because you saw the poster who wrote it.

I'm not arguing that we should find ways to reduce the deficit but, rather, your constant and persistent focus on bogeyman blame figures (old people, boomers, rich people, immigrants, bankers, landlords, Labour, Cannon and Ball, the Krankies et al). Take a look down the right way of the telescope for once.

Most of the things you'd like to see will be phased in I'm sure. I don't expect to get free prescriptions, winter fuel allowance, a free TV License or bus pass when I retire and you certainly won't - I'm sure you'll be delighted.

mayonnaise

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

MP's get £160/week for groceries

Let's target the real scroungers ..... please?

No they don't.

In our efforts to make a political argument we often seize on a “fact” that we find and repeat it in a massive game of “Chinese Whispers” until it bears no resemblance to reality and is out of date anyway.

False claim about MP's groceries allowance

One such example is the idea that MPs routinely get £160 per week for groceries.It’s just not true. I have asked some MPS and they confirm that they do NOT get £160 per week for groceries. What is true is that MPs can claim for dinner if they are away from home late on parliamentary business or debating after 7:30pm in the House of Commons.

From the Parliamentary Standards Authority:


MPs can claim:

£25 per night for food and non-alcoholic drinks when travelling outside of the London Area and their constituency in pursuit of parliamentary functions
£15 per night for food and non-alcoholic drinks when the House of Commons sits beyond 7.30pm*

http://www.latentexistence.me.uk/mps-expenses-and-other-inaccurate-claims/

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I'm not arguing that we should find ways to reduce the deficit but, rather, your constant and persistent focus on bogeyman blame figures (old people, boomers, rich people, immigrants, bankers, landlords, Labour, Cannon and Ball, the Krankies et al). Take a look down the right way of the telescope for once.

I'm not blaming anyone, all I've simply stated is that those who have the ability to pay, could pay and therefore everyone is doing their bit and we'll be on the road to a better recovery, soooner. I am hardly blaming any figure as I'm stating that ALL should take the burden. The working age benefits SHOULD be frozen. Yet you insist on making out I'm attacking old people.

You are trying far to hard to create an argument here and are simply loading words into my mouth to do so.

You yourself have only just stated that you would prefer a private system where people pay their way, but are going out of your way to take issue with me when I'm basically stating the very same thing when it comes to prescription charges.

I just cannot understand why you do this.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You yourself have only just stated that you would prefer a private system where people pay their way, but are going out of your way to take issue with me when I'm basically stating the very same thing when it comes to prescription charges.

I just cannot understand why you do this.

I want more people to live healthy more fulfilled lives. You want old people to pay for prescriptions. Both may well save money but whilst we both may have a desire for change I suspect (despite your protestations) we're worlds apart when it comes to our motivations for this change.

I don't know why anyone that, say, pays 40% tax should get free prescriptions whether they are young or old to be honest. I imagine it might, just, be cost effective to pay civil servants to handle this but it's small picture stuff, minutiae. Pragmatically it's not worth the effort to rush at it because those cuddly old folk have a nasty habit of voting.

To change the way taxes are raised and push the distribution up the age scale then more younger people need to a) think it's a reasonable thing to do and b) get out and vote.

N1AK

wotsthat wrote: »

It's the non existent army of pensioners who roam the planet like nomads in their £50k motorhomes searching out the best golf courses before ending the day with a bath in champagne.

The strawman argument, a sure sign that someone has a strong position to support