The Liberal Democrats - "The REAL Alternative?"

[Invictus_88]

whapcapn

EDIT: Oo thought of an excuse for a double post. How about that mad scheme of subsidising poeple on the NHS to go private? It seems to be rewarding people who can afford to pay half of the fee by allowing them to queue-jump, and doing nothing for the least wealthy. If this is going to have to be done (when in fact it seems to me that simply improving the NHS would be a far better plan);surely it would "give people who've paid their taxes a fairer deal" to simply entirely subsidise everyone with below a certain income and make anyone with more than that pay the entire fee? Or have the percentage of the subsidy made aa function of the person's income?

*BAM!*

Your condemnation falls.

It would only stand up if the NHS spent more money having someone treated by the private sector than by they would have otherwise. As it stands; the policy is that if the cost of the private operation is more than it would cost the NHS then the NHS will contribute 50% of what it would have cost them, toward whatever it costs the private sector. If the operation would cost less on the private sector than it would cost the NHS to do the same, then the NHS will pay for 100% of the costs.

Under that system; NHS waiting lists will fall, the NHS will save money, all people of all financial abilities are able to be cared for faster and it will free us finances in order to better clean the hospitals without such an increase in funding.

NB: The above is shamelessly pasted from my posts in the Politics subforum sticky found here.  

[Boolean Julian]

Invictus_88

whapcapn

EDIT: Oo thought of an excuse for a double post. How about that mad scheme of subsidising poeple on the NHS to go private? It seems to be rewarding people who can afford to pay half of the fee by allowing them to queue-jump, and doing nothing for the least wealthy. If this is going to have to be done (when in fact it seems to me that simply improving the NHS would be a far better plan);surely it would "give people who've paid their taxes a fairer deal" to simply entirely subsidise everyone with below a certain income and make anyone with more than that pay the entire fee? Or have the percentage of the subsidy made aa function of the person's income?

*BAM!*

Your condemnation falls.


It would only stand up if the NHS spent more money having someone treated by the private sector than by they would have otherwise. As it stands; the policy is that if the cost of the private operation is more than it would cost the NHS then the NHS will contribute 50% of what it would have cost them, toward whatever it costs the private sector. If the operation would cost less on the private sector than it would cost the NHS to do the same, then the NHS will pay for 100% of the costs.

Under that system; NHS waiting lists will fall, the NHS will save money, all people of all financial abilities are able to be cared for faster and it will free us finances in order to better clean the hospitals without such an increase in funding.

NB: The above is shamelessly pasted from my posts in the Politics subforum sticky found here.

Not people of all financial abilities; only those who can afford to pay the subsidised cost. All it's doing is lowering the financial bar . So, yes, more people can queue-jump; but still not everyone.

Right, I'm ignorant here, so please forgive me if I'm totally wrong, but why not just abolish private hospitals? Private medical workers would be re-employed by the NHS, solving short-staffing problems.  

[Invictus_88]

whapcapn

Invictus_88

whapcapn

EDIT: Oo thought of an excuse for a double post. How about that mad scheme of subsidising poeple on the NHS to go private? It seems to be rewarding people who can afford to pay half of the fee by allowing them to queue-jump, and doing nothing for the least wealthy. If this is going to have to be done (when in fact it seems to me that simply improving the NHS would be a far better plan);surely it would "give people who've paid their taxes a fairer deal" to simply entirely subsidise everyone with below a certain income and make anyone with more than that pay the entire fee? Or have the percentage of the subsidy made aa function of the person's income?

*BAM!*

Your condemnation falls.


It would only stand up if the NHS spent more money having someone treated by the private sector than by they would have otherwise. As it stands; the policy is that if the cost of the private operation is more than it would cost the NHS then the NHS will contribute 50% of what it would have cost them, toward whatever it costs the private sector. If the operation would cost less on the private sector than it would cost the NHS to do the same, then the NHS will pay for 100% of the costs.

Under that system; NHS waiting lists will fall, the NHS will save money, all people of all financial abilities are able to be cared for faster and it will free us finances in order to better clean the hospitals without such an increase in funding.

NB: The above is shamelessly pasted from my posts in the Politics subforum sticky found here.

Not people of all financial abilities; only those who can afford to pay the subsidised cost. All it's doing is lowering the financial bar . So, yes, more people can queue-jump; but still not everyone.

Right, I'm ignorant here, so please forgive me if I'm totally wrong, but why not just abolish private hospitals? Private medical workers would be re-employed by the NHS, solving short-staffing problems.

No, they're not jumping the queue. They are stepping out of it, getting served faster whilst allowing the por to get served faster too. Win win. Vote Tory.

Why not abolish? Because there is not need and it helps keep the pressure off the NHS.  

[Boolean Julian]

Invictus_88

whapcapn

Invictus_88

whapcapn

EDIT: Oo thought of an excuse for a double post. How about that mad scheme of subsidising poeple on the NHS to go private? It seems to be rewarding people who can afford to pay half of the fee by allowing them to queue-jump, and doing nothing for the least wealthy. If this is going to have to be done (when in fact it seems to me that simply improving the NHS would be a far better plan);surely it would "give people who've paid their taxes a fairer deal" to simply entirely subsidise everyone with below a certain income and make anyone with more than that pay the entire fee? Or have the percentage of the subsidy made aa function of the person's income?

*BAM!*

Your condemnation falls.


It would only stand up if the NHS spent more money having someone treated by the private sector than by they would have otherwise. As it stands; the policy is that if the cost of the private operation is more than it would cost the NHS then the NHS will contribute 50% of what it would have cost them, toward whatever it costs the private sector. If the operation would cost less on the private sector than it would cost the NHS to do the same, then the NHS will pay for 100% of the costs.

Under that system; NHS waiting lists will fall, the NHS will save money, all people of all financial abilities are able to be cared for faster and it will free us finances in order to better clean the hospitals without such an increase in funding.

NB: The above is shamelessly pasted from my posts in the Politics subforum sticky found here.

Not people of all financial abilities; only those who can afford to pay the subsidised cost. All it's doing is lowering the financial bar . So, yes, more people can queue-jump; but still not everyone.

Right, I'm ignorant here, so please forgive me if I'm totally wrong, but why not just abolish private hospitals? Private medical workers would be re-employed by the NHS, solving short-staffing problems.

No, they're not jumping the queue. They are stepping out of it, getting served faster whilst allowing the por to get served faster too. Win win. Vote Tory.

Why not abolish? Because there is not need and it helps keep the pressure off the NHS.

So what you're saying is, the poor have less long to wait for their operations, but the more well-to-do can get seen to immediately?
And anyway, you're admitting defeat on your original statement that the option to go private is availdable to people of all financial abilities. (This would be acceptable in an argument with anyone else, but you're Invi. You are not allowed to be wrong even once.)  

[Invictus_88]

whapcapn

Invictus_88

whapcapn

Invictus_88

whapcapn

EDIT: Oo thought of an excuse for a double post. How about that mad scheme of subsidising poeple on the NHS to go private? It seems to be rewarding people who can afford to pay half of the fee by allowing them to queue-jump, and doing nothing for the least wealthy. If this is going to have to be done (when in fact it seems to me that simply improving the NHS would be a far better plan);surely it would "give people who've paid their taxes a fairer deal" to simply entirely subsidise everyone with below a certain income and make anyone with more than that pay the entire fee? Or have the percentage of the subsidy made aa function of the person's income?

*BAM!*

Your condemnation falls.


It would only stand up if the NHS spent more money having someone treated by the private sector than by they would have otherwise. As it stands; the policy is that if the cost of the private operation is more than it would cost the NHS then the NHS will contribute 50% of what it would have cost them, toward whatever it costs the private sector. If the operation would cost less on the private sector than it would cost the NHS to do the same, then the NHS will pay for 100% of the costs.

Under that system; NHS waiting lists will fall, the NHS will save money, all people of all financial abilities are able to be cared for faster and it will free us finances in order to better clean the hospitals without such an increase in funding.

NB: The above is shamelessly pasted from my posts in the Politics subforum sticky found here.

Not people of all financial abilities; only those who can afford to pay the subsidised cost. All it's doing is lowering the financial bar . So, yes, more people can queue-jump; but still not everyone.

Right, I'm ignorant here, so please forgive me if I'm totally wrong, but why not just abolish private hospitals? Private medical workers would be re-employed by the NHS, solving short-staffing problems.

No, they're not jumping the queue. They are stepping out of it, getting served faster whilst allowing the poor to get served faster too. Win win. Vote Tory.

Why not abolish? Because there is not need and it helps keep the pressure off the NHS.

So what you're saying is, the poor have less long to wait for their operations, but the more well-to-do can get seen to immediately?
And anyway, you're admitting defeat on your original statement that the option to go private is availdable to people of all financial abilities. (This would be acceptable in an argument with anyone else, but you're Invi. You are not allowed to be wrong even once.)

Sorry old boy, I pwn by default. It's not that I can't ever be wrong, just that I never am wrong.

Re-read, I didn't say that the option to go private was available to all but rather that peopel of all financial abilities are able to be served faster. Which is true. Or, it will be if you vote tory.  

[Nebelstern]

Heh. Remind me never to make a thread about politics ever again. sweatdrop
Or yoghurt for that matter.  

[Invictus_88]

biggrin

Invi for Minister for Defence, 2020!  

[Boolean Julian]

Invictus_88

whapcapn

Invictus_88

whapcapn

Invictus_88

whapcapn

EDIT: Oo thought of an excuse for a double post. How about that mad scheme of subsidising poeple on the NHS to go private? It seems to be rewarding people who can afford to pay half of the fee by allowing them to queue-jump, and doing nothing for the least wealthy. If this is going to have to be done (when in fact it seems to me that simply improving the NHS would be a far better plan);surely it would "give people who've paid their taxes a fairer deal" to simply entirely subsidise everyone with below a certain income and make anyone with more than that pay the entire fee? Or have the percentage of the subsidy made aa function of the person's income?

*BAM!*

Your condemnation falls.


It would only stand up if the NHS spent more money having someone treated by the private sector than by they would have otherwise. As it stands; the policy is that if the cost of the private operation is more than it would cost the NHS then the NHS will contribute 50% of what it would have cost them, toward whatever it costs the private sector. If the operation would cost less on the private sector than it would cost the NHS to do the same, then the NHS will pay for 100% of the costs.

Under that system; NHS waiting lists will fall, the NHS will save money, all people of all financial abilities are able to be cared for faster and it will free us finances in order to better clean the hospitals without such an increase in funding.

NB: The above is shamelessly pasted from my posts in the Politics subforum sticky found here.

Not people of all financial abilities; only those who can afford to pay the subsidised cost. All it's doing is lowering the financial bar . So, yes, more people can queue-jump; but still not everyone.

Right, I'm ignorant here, so please forgive me if I'm totally wrong, but why not just abolish private hospitals? Private medical workers would be re-employed by the NHS, solving short-staffing problems.

No, they're not jumping the queue. They are stepping out of it, getting served faster whilst allowing the poor to get served faster too. Win win. Vote Tory.

Why not abolish? Because there is not need and it helps keep the pressure off the NHS.

So what you're saying is, the poor have less long to wait for their operations, but the more well-to-do can get seen to immediately?
And anyway, you're admitting defeat on your original statement that the option to go private is availdable to people of all financial abilities. (This would be acceptable in an argument with anyone else, but you're Invi. You are not allowed to be wrong even once.)

Sorry old boy, I pwn by default. It's not that I can't ever be wrong, just that I never am wrong.

Re-read, I didn't say that the option to go private was available to all but rather that peopel of all financial abilities are able to be served faster. Which is true. Or, it will be if you vote tory.

Yes, but my bottom line is still that the system is unfair because the rich can get treated faster than the poor. You can't argue with that.  

[Boolean Julian]

AND what about the flawed immigration policy? *Pokes with stick*  

[Nebelstern]

Invictus_88

biggrin

Invi for Minister for Defence, 2020!

I would support you.
...for the money!! Yes, yes... *rubs hands in glee*  

[Boolean Julian]

And (sorry to make all these posts), why is so much of the Tories' election campaign based around slagging off Tony Blair? Everyone knows that he's pretty much a shithead, and doesn't really properly represent the values of the Labour party. New Labour is simply a mess. Old Labour is actually coherent. If I voted Labour (which I don't plan to do, not only because I can't vote), I woulnd't be voting for Blair as Prime Minister, I'd be voting for Brown in a few years time.
Actually, I'd like to see ken as Prime Minister...but that's not going to happen. I'm sure you all know who I mean.  

[Invictus_88]

whapcapn

And (sorry to make all these posts), why is so much of the Tories' election campaign based around slagging off Tony Blair? Everyone knows that he's pretty much a shithead, and doesn't really properly represent the values of the Labour party. New Labour is simply a mess. Old Labour is actually coherent. If I voted Labour (which I don't plan to do, not only because I can't vote), I woulnd't be voting for Blair as Prime Minister, I'd be voting for Brown in a few years time.
Actually, I'd like to see ken as Prime Minister...but that's not going to happen. I'm sure you all know who I mean.

Actually no. Too many stupids out there will just vote Blair of reflex because they are working class or chavs growing quite fond of their excessive benefits.

The point must continually be made the Blair lied to us, he spilt British blood over a lie. If we do not then he will just try to grin his way out if it again, the slippery b*****d.

Also, why would you vote Brown? Do you know anything about him beyond that he's a good Chancellor of the Exchequer?  

[Invictus_88]

whapcapn

AND what about the flawed immigration policy? *Pokes with stick*

It is flawed to choose controlled immigration over uncontrolled immigration?  

[Boolean Julian]

Invictus_88

whapcapn

AND what about the flawed immigration policy? *Pokes with stick*

It is flawed to choose controlled immigration over uncontrolled immigration?

Not when the controlled immigration policy has a huge hole in it. Howard wants to control the entry of asylum seekers into this country, but he doesn't want to actually turn anyone back. he is proposing a system by where the entry of asylum seekers will be done over a gradual period of time so that someone who applies for citezenship in, say, December will be able to be fitted into the next years quota. Sounds good. The problem is, he hasn't addressed two vital points. The first is that a huge backlog will build up if you don't let everyone in and don't send anyone back. There will be more and more people waiting to be granted entry building up. The other problem is simply: where are they going to be when waiting for citizenship? Maybe in the world of adminastration they can be in limbo, but that obviously doesn't work in reality. They have to have a physical location. Which Howard simply hasn't sorted out. He says, yes, that they will sort it out if/when they get into government; but what country is going to want to take in a growing collection of people waiting to be allowed into Britain? And, anyway, even if he eventually negotiates somewhere for them to be, that's still not good enough. They need somewhere to be as soon as he gets into government.  

[Boolean Julian]

Invictus_88

whapcapn

And (sorry to make all these posts), why is so much of the Tories' election campaign based around slagging off Tony Blair? Everyone knows that he's pretty much a shithead, and doesn't really properly represent the values of the Labour party. New Labour is simply a mess. Old Labour is actually coherent. If I voted Labour (which I don't plan to do, not only because I can't vote), I woulnd't be voting for Blair as Prime Minister, I'd be voting for Brown in a few years time.
Actually, I'd like to see ken as Prime Minister...but that's not going to happen. I'm sure you all know who I mean.

Actually no. Too many stupids out there will just vote Blair of reflex because they are working class or chavs growing quite fond of their excessive benefits.

The point must continually be made the Blair lied to us, he spilt British blood over a lie. If we do not then he will just try to grin his way out if it again, the slippery b*****d.

Also, why would you vote Brown? Do you know anything about him beyond that he's a good Chancellor of the Exchequer?

I'm not arguing with you that Blair is a c**k. He doesn't represent the views of the real Labour party, as I said before. I may not be an expert on Brown ideals, but I know he's a good deal more liberal than Blair. Furthermore, Blair has announced that he will step down during this next term of service if he gets re-elected. Whatever happens, we won't see Blair as pm anymore after at most five years from now.
Besides, I'm getting sick of both Tory and Labour's highly negative campaigns. The Tory campaign revolves around the principle that Blair is a liar and needs getting rid of; and the Labour campaign recently went even worse, stooping to saying "if just one out of ten labour voters don't vote, Michael Howard becomes Prime Minister"