You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I'll repeat it again: GPs are not in the public sector.
They are predominately funded by the public purse, so it is purely a semantic point.
I found this to be an enlightening read about GPs:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-zoe-norris/nhs-gp-appointment_b_7164322.html
They are predominately funded by the public purse, so it is purely a semantic point.
No it isn't. They would not have been able to negotiate the significant rises talked about if they were public sector employees.
There are plenty of other areas where the private sector receives the majority of its income from the public purse.
No it isn't. They would not have been able to negotiate the significant rises talked about if they were public sector employees.
Depends on the counterfactual if they had been paid on the basis of number of patients etc, it would.
Just a thought. If organisations were not allowed to profit from the NHS, would the big drug companies (Astra Zeneca etc) sell drugs to the NHS?
The drug companies, as well as those with their fingers in the pie, are fleecing the NHS. In fact there was an interesting post in the BMJ about this.
Depends on the counterfactual if they had been paid on the basis of number of patients etc, it would.
The problem of GPs being private contractors goes back to the formation of the NHS - Bevan famously commented that he stuffed their mouths with gold just to get the thing running.
Given most other doctors are salaried employees we can be fairly sure what would happen to GPs - they would be graded and have the same collectively negotiated increases as everyone else.
If organisations were not allowed to profit from the NHS, would the big drug companies (Astra Zeneca etc) sell drugs to the NHS?
The NHS would be destroyed in an instant, the whole thing relies on private companies to make drugs, MRI scanners, X-ray kit, blankets etc and the UK would lose a fair chunk of tax as all the companies left. Plus it is often the private companies that supply the expertise to the NHS in terms of the latest products and research, many NHS staff are way behind the times.
By the way making a private and making a profit is not a bad thing.
Indeed if you cannot profit from the ill health of others /their bad fortune then what can you profit from ?
Obviously if they cannot pay then they should just remain ill and /or die [ see Africa for various examples of this] Clearly profiting is what really matters here and not curing them or reducing the sum total of human suffering
By the way making a private and making a profit is not a bad thing.
Depends on how much, and at whose expense.
Is it good that investors cream a load of profits off the railways? Part of your fare goes into someone's pocket who doesn't work on the railways.
Dragon - Glad someone's got some sense and is in touch with the real world.
Why would anyone invest in the expense of designing new drugs or equipment without a reward? So in your model millions are pumped in to develop the drug get it through the trails, pay for marketing etc. and at the end the people who put in all that money get nothing back but a warm cuddly glow? Yeah that'll work.
I wasn't talking about railways, and TBH as they seem to run better now IMO than under BR I can't see the issue. No one is forcing you to use them. Worth noting that the UK railway infrastructure was pretty much all built by private enterprise, prior to it being nationalised.
Obviously if they cannot pay then they should just remain ill and /or die
That's probably what would happen if they (the NHS) couldn't buy drugs
I wasn't talking about railways, and TBH as they seem to run better now IMO than under BR I can't see the issue.
You do realise that the infrastructure is publicly owned? And that the government had to take East Coast back into public ownership?
That's probably what would happen if they (the NHS) couldn't buy drugs
I buy my own drugs as the NHS won't prescribe them. NHS Consultant agrees that they are what I need but am left to buy from outside the UK. 😐
it was often commented that no country has ever cut its way out of a deficit
Has any country ever borrowed its wat out of a deficit?
borrowing has continued to rise under the current government
I wonder how many folk who use this point as a stick to beat the Conservatives with are also outraged by the current level of austerity.
Just a thought. If organisations were not allowed to profit from the NHS, would the big drug companies (Astra Zeneca etc) sell drugs to the NHS?
This will be interesting once the TTIP is fully ratified. Might they go further than simply refusing to supply the NHS and sue the government for the inability to profit?
Actually you can't borrow and spend your way out of a recession, that was tried and proved to fail in the 70's, the second to last time labour screwed up this country, and indeed the last time where they excelled themselves and actually proved that you can borrow and spend your way from a healthy and growing economy to a bear bankrupted one. But I guess people have short memories, and labour sympathisers are shorter than most, as it was declared by the Labour Party in the '70's that the notion of spending your way out of a recession is well and truly dead. The economy was not recovering when the Tories took over and in anycase reducing the deficit can only make sense - on what level does anyone think it is sensible or acceptable to spend more than you earn? It's a simple principle which labour simply don't believe in - they always have and always will overspend knowing full well when things eventually collapse the 'nasty tories' will come in, do the difficult thing and sort the mess out so they always look like the bad guys and labour come back in and ruin things once again. It's a vicious cycle.
Milliband is not fit to run local council meeting let alone the country, and his partner in crime, Sturgen (who I'm convinced is the little one out of the Crankies) will run rings around him and hold the UK to ransome - 5M people holding 55M people to ransom. Not very democratic is it?
I voted Tory for these and many other reasons, not least I don't think labour deserves another shot after the complete hash they made of their last tenure, and every one before it. They've always been incompetent and under Milliband and Sturgen they'll be more so. No doubt someone will be along to quote and edit my post with a patronising FTFY on the end.
Wobbliscott, I agree.
Also the hypocrisy of SNP is that they want to fight labour, and then join them!!!! What's their real agenda?
on what level does anyone think it is sensible or acceptable to spend more than you earn?
When it's for the purpose of investment to increase what you earn.
For example, if I decided that I could make a lot of money running a bike shop, I would have to borrow the money to buy the premises. Far more money than I currently have. And the mortgage payments might be more than I can afford. However when the shop's up and running, I would be making a tidy profit even after the mortgage.
It's really not hard to think of times when it's a good idea to spend more than you earn. It's bad in some circumstances, of course, but good in others. So banging on and on and on about it being ludicrous is just ****ing stupid and demonstrates you don't know shit. Sorry to get angry but I'm sick and tired of explaining it. I hope you feel patronised.
That doesn't mean that the last government did it well, but it DOES mean that it's not always a bad idea in principle.
Seems like most Tories are simply succumbing to confirmation bias, which is something that really destroys political debate. So snap out of it.
That's all well and understood, but it also bears repeating that the differences between a country's finances and a person's finances mean they aren't really that comparable. And anyway, how much of the more than £half a trillion that the last Labour government added to the national debt went on investment as opposed to expanding public sector office jobs?
Has any country ever borrowed its way out of a deficit, molgrips?
Also the hypocrisy of SNP is that they want to fight labour, and then join them!!!!
In that case it's a bit like hypocrisy of the Tories wanting to fight the Libdems and then join them to form a government.
No, wait, I'm sure that's entirely different.
^ I wasn't aware the lib dems wanted to split Scotland from the UK
You said :
the hypocrisy of SNP is that they want to fight labour
No mention at all about wanting "to split Scotland from the UK".
The Tories definitely want to fight the LibDems, and then form a government with them.
But that's not hypocrisy of course.
Those sort of terms are reserved for your political rivals.
That's all well and understood, but it also bears repeating that the differences between a country's finances and a person's finances mean they aren't really that comparable.
That's been my point all along. Tories seem to be keen on making idiotic comparisons between government finances and domestic ones, so I gave an example where it would work even in a domestic situation.
Has any country ever borrowed its way out of a deficit, molgrips?
Dunno, but I think you can spend your way out. Just don't borrow too much.
And anyway, how much of the more than £half a trillion that the last Labour government added to the national debt went on investment as opposed to expanding public sector office jobs?
So you think none of the extra jobs were worth anything? Is this perhaps confirmation bias at work here?
Comparisons between national and domestic finances are entirely valid (if done correctly) and in any case will always be made in order to communicate with the electorate. Borrowing makes sense to buy a house or even a car if that is required to get to/from work. Borrowing to pay for non-essential items or when you know you are going to get a pay cut or lose your job does not.
NHS, other health systems exist in different countries and they work quite well including many who have large sections which are in the private sector. The notion that the only model is a totally public sector NHS is daft, in fact to say so is scaremongering
Exactly. So define non-essential? That's the tricky part, isn't it?
Indeed molgrips that's where it starts to get political
No mention at all about wanting "to split Scotland from the UK".
Taken from the SNPs website:
The independence we propose for Scotland is exactly for this purpose. It is with independence - the natural state for nations like Scotland - that we will have the ability to determine our own destiny and build the best future for our country.
http://www.snp.org/vision/better-scotland
Ernie im convinced your a troll and I'm going to ignore your posts from now on
IIRC this is what the right wingers do when they know they cannot hold their own in a debate with a Left winger.
Comparisons between national and domestic finances are entirely valid (if done correctly)
They are not and we need no further proof than you think its ok to do it
Ernie im convinced your a troll and I'm going to ignore your posts from now on
Oh please don't ignore me 🙄
Btw thanks for pointing out to me that the SNP wants Scottish independence.
Now getting back to the point you were making, quote : [i] the hypocrisy of SNP is that they want to fight labour, and then join them!!!! [/i]
Is different to the hypocrisy of the Tories wanting to fight the Libdems and then join them to form a government in what way ?
The answer to the OP questions seems to be, quite a few. Those Audi driving IT types possibly?
Call me dave has spent the last 3 weeks telling me how awful the Scots are and they will wreck it all if you vote Labour, the Scots and Red Ed are going destroy everything. Now he is saying he wants to run the country for all of the UK. Make your mind up chap. The next 5 years are going to be excruciating 🙁
"Shy Tories", eh? 😕 The last five letters are superfluous. The vote that dare not speak its name.
Comparisons between national and domestic finances are entirely valid (if done correctly)
They're only valid if you're making an argument for cuts.
My household doesn't have to consider the effects of Keynesian economics. If I pay someone to build an extension on my house then it has no real impact on the economy. If the government builds power stations and railways then that can have an impact (a positive one) on the economy.
A picture which sums up the attitude of a lot of lefties I know personally and who rant on here.....
[URL= http://i410.photobucket.com/albums/pp187/rcatkin/random/FA9CA778-DF31-4B93-ACC9-295CEB0D6657_zpsnbj0exih.jp g" target="_blank">
http://i410.photobucket.com/albums/pp187/rcatkin/random/FA9CA778-DF31-4B93-ACC9-295CEB0D6657_zpsnbj0exih.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
On a war memorial.
Being a Tory is just selfishness dressed up as a political philosophy.
I have more respect for those that admit this and that they vote purely out of self-interest rather than trying to pretend that they give a **** about those less fortunate than themselves.
robdod - it's funny how upset people get over a war memorial but they don't care in the slightest about living war veterans suffering and dying right now because they've had their benefits cut by this government.
Also, there is evidence to suggest that was done by a police agent provocateur trying to discredit the protestors.
What evidence?
Reports on twitter from people saying they saw the guy that did it hanging out with the police afterwards having a brew. Could be bollocks but there is a well-documented history of the police/security services doing stuff like that so it wouldn't be a massive surprise.
Can you explain to me yet why a war memorial is more important than living people having their lives made a a misery or actually dying because of the government you voted for?
FRIENDS and family of a marine veteran who died from cancer while battling the state over benefits have told of their dismay he was never given an apology.Gordon Lang, who lived in Gosport, was in the middle of a fight with the Department for Work & Pensions after being told to work while unwell.
The 62-year-old amputee’s story drew huge support when he told The News he had been told to find a job despite being terminally ill with lung cancer. Mr Lang died from his illness on Monday and loved ones say the government should have said sorry to the war veteran for the way he was treated.
Close friend Richard Thomson said: ‘An amputee with severely restricted mobility, Gordon was put though a tick-box assessment to compel him to seek work after his disability benefit lifeline was cut.
‘He was compelled to turn up every few weeks to Jobcentre plus even if he wasn’t feeling well enough to attend and hounded with sanction threats if he didn’t comply. He was treated monstrously by a system that didn’t recognise from the outset he was one of life’s strivers not skivers. Even when it was finally recognised that he been unjustly treated and won his tribunal appeal, no apology was ever forthcoming.”
But hey, tax breaks for the well off won't fund themselves will they, so we have to find the money from somewhere.
Or this one:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/killed-benefits-cuts-starving-soldier-3923771
But no you're right, a bit of graffiti is far more important isn't it. 🙄
A picture which sums up the attitude of a lot of lefties I know personally and who rant on here.....
Oh dear oh dear. Do I now have to find some racist and offensive graffiti to make some crass comment regarding all right-wingers ?
Seriously robdob, that's quite pathetic.
Though it may or may not be the case, Grum's mention of agent provocateurs is entirely reasonable:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Demonstration_Squad
For example:
The SDS used the names of 80 dead children to create false identities for its operatives.
Some members of the SDS engaged in sexual relationships with protest organisers in an attempt to gain trust.On 23 October 2014, the Metropolitan Police Service agreed to pay £425,000 to a woman called Jacqui whose child was fathered by former SDS operative Bob Lambert; she did not know at the time of their relationship that he was an undercover police officer.
In 2013, former SDS undercover officer Peter Francis revealed that the SDS investigated the family of Stephen Lawrence in order to seek possible evidence to smear Lawrence with in case of racially motivated public order issues.
And yep, when veterans are suffering as a result of Her Majesty's Government, we have to wonder, what is more important, the memorial or the veterans themselves...
jambalaya - Member
...NHS, other health systems exist in different countries and they work quite well including many who have large sections which are in the private sector...
...for those who can afford to pay for them.
For the rest a disease like cancer leads to utter impoverishment, or a lingering death without treatment. No point in prolonging the lives of the underclasses, eh?
I find it quite funny that people here or people I meet seem to equate rioting anachists with labour voters.
jambalaya - Member
...NHS, other health systems exist in different countries and they work quite well including many who have large sections which are in the private sector...
Absolutely right. Half the story though. My understanding is that we live in straightened economic times where austerity and managed public spending is paramount. Where it is possible to reliably compare overall cost (whoever pays/however it is funded) versus treatment outcomes, internationally the nhs is one of if not the best value for money services.
Why would you want to risk eroding that value for money by retaining 'free at point of use' principle but forcing profit margins into the equation? it is hard enough to put on a service that balances the books for less money than and same outcomes as the old nhs provider, without then having to make a profit on it too. The profit also leaves the country in the case of many of the big boys lining up to run public services.
The justification for the health and social care act on economic/ vfm grounds is incredibly weak and smells of idealogy not pragmatism or thinking beyond the next 2 administrations.
...for those who can afford to pay for them.For the rest a disease like cancer leads to utter impoverishment, or a lingering death without treatment. No point in prolonging the lives of the underclasses, eh?
I don't think anyone is dying impoverished from cancer in the EU due to lack of money. That's just scaremongering. Many countries you have to pay something to see a doctor or a portion of your treatment which can then be claimed under a privately funded insurance policy. Basically we as a nation do not pay anything like enough tax to have the NHS we'd like, so something has to budge.
@Julian whilst you deride the concept of profit margin in the NHS the vast majority of the medicines you'll be given will have been researched, developed, produced and sold with that in mind.
StefMcDef - Member
"Shy Tories", eh? The last five letters are superfluous. The vote that dare not speak its name.
Not really.
Can you explain to me yet why a war memorial is more important than living people having their lives made a a misery or actually dying because of the government you voted for?
1: It isn't, but then nobody said it was.
2: They aren't.
Why is it that after soldiers have served their purpose, they rely on charity from the populace, rather than support from those who profited from the wars they were injured in?
whilst you deride the concept of profit margin in the NHS the vast majority of the medicines you'll be given will have been researched, developed, produced and sold with that in mind.
There is a huge fundamental difference between manufacturers and suppliers to the NHS, such as ambulance manufacturers, bed and furniture manufacturers, construction companies, grocery suppliers, drug manufacturers, etc, making a profit from the products and services they provide, and making a profit from the treatment that sick people receive, as well you know.
The concept of profit margin within the NHS itself has absolutely no part to play at all. Although it is of course proving to be increasingly irresistible to profit hungry privateers.
Why is it wrong to make a profit from treating illness? The work is still being paid for, just not at the point of use.
Well if you look at it on the same lines as
'the arms industry profits from war'
you need a market
To be fair though, thanks to junk food, TV, computer games etc, there is no end of profitable ailments to be treated...
And that's you add mountain bikers and our regular injuries to the mix
NHS, other health systems exist in different countries and they work quite well including many who have large sections which are in the private sector...
If you want it to be both worse in terms of provision and cost more money to provide it then indeed it does work "quite well"
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health ]The NHS has been declared the best healthcare system by an international panel of experts who rated its care superior to countries which spend far more on health[/url]
FWIW the research was conducted in america in case you suspect bias
Its very very hard to find anyone in this country willing to criticise the NHS or want to replace it and I can name only you and farage and the later failed to convince UKIP it made sense to do this.
Why is it wrong to make a profit from treating illness?
You might be an exception Woppit, and I'm sure you are, but most people don't want profit to be the motive behind the treatment they and their love ones receive.
You never mentioned motive and I'm not suggesting that it is. I don't see why it shouldn't be a by-product, though. We've all got to make a living.
So - what's the objection, exactly?
Can someone tell me what the best government we have said since the war?
In my 50 years whoever has been in has been hated.
Woppit,
Because then profit is the motivation for the standard of care folks get.
We've all got to make a living.
Yeah I think I'll leave it there. It's very clear that I'm not suggesting that staff in the NHS shouldn't paid a wage. I think you just want to have a silly argument.
Why would you want to risk eroding that value for money by retaining 'free at point of use' principle but forcing profit margins into the equation? it is hard enough to put on a service that balances the books for less money than and same outcomes as the old nhs provider, without then having to make a profit on it too. The profit also leaves the country in the case of many of the big boys lining up to run public services.
Why can't more people see this? I seem to have this same argument everytime. Public service being run by private business can only be a bad thing for the end user or financier. It's be exactly the same but share holders will be more important than patients.
duckman - Member
Woppit,
Because then profit is the motivation for the standard of care folks get.
That's the sort of precision I was looking for.
Good point.
It's be exactly the same but share holders will be more important than patients.
No need for them to be, happy patients and happy shareholders can exist together.
Also think of the money the taxpayer has wasted on awful IT systems, in a private system they'd need to be absorbed by the company.
[quote=hexhamstu said] It's be exactly the same but share holders will be more important than patients.
Not if the contract ties payment into patient outcomes, patient satisfaction, etc.
I've received plenty of high quality care and treatment from non NHS practitioners. In fact in my experience they have offered materially higher quality care than their NHS equivalent. The NHS was set up to provide life saving treatments, to help us into the world and to assist us at the end of our lives (when that was expected to be 65). Quite simply the NHS cannot cope with what it's being asked to do today, we either all need to pay much higher taxes or accept the NHS cannot do everything it's being asked to. My mother has been in agony for 6 months as the NHS could not or would not treat her, the private cost of her diagnosis and treatment was about £1,000. The NHS is in a very bad way, it needs a material overhaul, it most certainly does not need more money just thrown at it.
The NHS absolutely has to make treatment decisions based upon cost, it runs to a budget and different treatments cost different amounts. There is little difference between that and operating for profit.
It is possible to have a private hospital which operates not for profit.
Its very very hard to find anyone in this country willing to criticise the NHS or want to replace it
Hey Junkyard, you've been talking to the wrong people. 🙂
I would happily criticise my old GP surgery all day long.
A bunch of incompetent a holes who should be struck off and I would like to do a lot worse.
My new GP is excellent.
And making a profit for carrying out a service I dont have a problem with.
I have paid for laser surgery. £3k for a NHS surgeon to treat me.
I am more than happy for him and his colleagues to make a profit from that.
He works 4 days a week as a NHS consultant and 1 day a week private.
I dont see the problem.
The NHS need protecting from the public as much as from mismanagement and unrealistic expectations.
Exactly @Sancho.
What I like about the French system for example is if you chose to go "private" you get part of the bill paid for by the state. So you can chose state, ie all paid for. Or a different provider but get the state equivalent amount refunded. So for the sake of argument state Doctors visit £50 and paid for, private doctor £75 but £50 refunded and £25 you pay either personally or by insurance (which is proper private insurance with pre existing conditions covered)
I am now a long term burden on the NHS.
I am taking about 7-10 tablets a day.
So what is the difference between Glaxo/Pfizer etc making a profit for treating my condition versus a Private surgical company treating my condition.
Both private, both making a profit and both making we well again.
(well keeping me alive)
I don't get the froth when talking about private treatment of patients.
There are plenty of "charities" (Read that as businesses with a clever mechanism of not declaring accounts) that treat people all day long and no one bats an eye lid.
[i]While anguished speculation about Where the Left Goes Now continues unabated, the Right isn't going anywhere. It doesn't have to – it has stuff to do. David Cameron now has a majority in the Commons and is hoping to push some controversial measures through while his political opponents are either resigning, un-resigning or polishing their CVs for leadership contests.
So let us leave the hand-wringing and hysterics aside for a second, calmly appraise the measures the Tories have pledged to introduce and consider how they might affect ordinary people across the UK.[/i]
Human Rights
Snooper Charter
Green Energy Subsidies
unions and Employment Rights
Constituency Boundaries
[url= http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/tory-policy-explained-748 ]Vice News: All those Nasty tory policies[/url]
Plenty of private sector involvement in the NHS, much of it doing very little for patient care:
http://nhaspace.com/2015/02/19/5-forms-of-nhs-privatisation-you-should-know-about/
In fact, (under both NuLab & current Gov, but greatly accelerated by the woeful '12 HaSC) current reforms have simply pushed up costs [i]and[/i] bureaucracy. "Free at the point of use" is just weasel-words: smooth talk for handing services to the loss-leading, risk-avoiding, profit-bet likes of Virgin & Care_UK. None of which is leading to a demonstrable improvement in outcomes.
Continental healthcare systems aren't doing more-for-less. The issue isn't a pretence that the NHS is perfect - it isn't - it's that [b]good value[/b] services are being very deliberately fragmented.
I think you are being disingenuous noteeth.
Plenty of private sector involvement doing a great deal for the NHS.
The PFI is a disaster for the NHS, and so are those in the website, but that is not the full picture.
But still no problem with private drug suppliers, how much of the budget is drugs?
I think you are being disingenuous noteeth.
Yawn. Are you denying that it is happening?
But still no problem with private drug suppliers.
I have no problem with "the private sector" or "the market" - but I have a big fugging problem with the rhetoric currently being used to justify reforms which are wrecking what the NHS can (and does) do well.
Do you not read what I said.
I just acknowledged the points in the email dumb-ass.
I am pointing out to you, thet there is a lot of private sector involvement that is doing a great deal.
but maybe you need pictures.
I just acknowledged the points in the email dumb-ass.
Easy now... watch your blood pressure.
The NHS relies upon private suppliers for everything from IV bungs to fancy electric beds? Well, knock me down with a feather.
It still doesn't justify much of the recent reform. And given the likely direction at DoH, I'd like to know exactly what people think they are voting for.
[i]maybe you need pictures[/i]
Yes please - perhaps one of a transit van painted like an ambulance, and being driven by a taxi-crew.
Has this been covered yet?
http://benjaminstudebaker.com/2015/05/02/britain-for-the-love-of-god-please-stop-david-cameron/
1: It isn't, but then nobody said it was.2: They aren't.
Woppit how can you possible claim no 2.
Did you read the article about the man dying of cancer who was told to find work and had his benefits stopped for missing appointments?
Atos scandal: Benefits bosses admit over half of people ruled fit to work ended up destitutePUBLIC fury is growing towards the French IT firm for their role in helping the Con-Dem government slash benefits.
Iain Duncan Smith, Secretary of State for Work and PensionsIain Duncan Smith, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
MORE than HALF of people stripped of disability benefits after being ruled “fit for work” by Atos were left unemployed and without income, according to a Government study.
The Department for Work and Pensions, who hired the French IT firm to help them slash the benefits bill, have admitted finding out in a survey that 55 per cent of people who lost benefits in the crackdown had failed to find work.
Only 15 per cent were in jobs, with 30 per cent on other benefits.
The DWP claimed people left high and dry were given “tailored support” to find jobs.
But the extent of the hardship suffered by the Atos victims in the study will only add to the growing public fury about the firm and their methods.
Atos have assessed patients with terminal illnesses as “fit for work”. And thousands of victims of genuine, chronic conditions have complained of being humiliated by the company’s tests.
So far, Citizens Advice Scotland have received a shocking 24,000 complaints about Atos, who rake in £110million a year from the taxpayer for their controversial work.
The extent of unemployment among people denied benefits after Atos assessments was revealed by the DWP after a Freedom of Information request.
Why not just admit that you don't actually give a shit about the people being left destitute by the government you voted for, because that's the reality isn't it.
David Cameron criticised over welfare reforms by 26 Church of England bishops who say 'national crisis' is causing poverty and malnutrition
Leading figures from Church of England, Methodist church, the United Reform Church and Quakers all signed open letter to David Cameron
In it they say welfare reform has created a 'national crisis'
They accuse Government of using in 'punitive sanctions' against claimants
They say people are now having to chose between heating and eating
Half a million have used food banks since last Easter and 5,500 have been treated in hospital for malnutrition, letter says
This is despite living in one of the richest countries in the world. Tory voters - I hope you're all proud of yourselves
@grum given those stories you posted perhaps there should be some questions asked as to what the £280 billion being spent on welfare and the NHS is being used for. If what you say is true it's clearly not being spent wisely.
If the Labour party had not run up such a deficit and spending commitments in the good years, post the crises perhaps whatever government followed could have spent more and cut less.
Oh right, it's still all Labour's fault. 🙄
You're passing the buck - YOU voted for this, YOU are responsible for ruining these people's lives. Take a bit of ****ing responsibility
Disabled people set to lose £28.3bn of support
- Thousands of disabled people will be hit simultaneously by up to six different welfare cuts
- Disabled people will lose £28.3bn of support by 2018
- Up to 3.7 million disabled people affected in total
- Demos calls on the Government to publish the cumulative impact of multiple cuts to benefits
- Scope asks where disabled people fit in to Chancellor’s ‘aspiration nation’?
not wanting to argue against your points grum.
But, I didnt hear anywhere in the election any mention of the ATOS disability issue.
It wasnt raised by Labour the SNP or anyone.
maybe if it had more people would have voted differently.
@Julian whilst you deride the concept of profit margin in the NHS the vast majority of the medicines you'll be given will have been researched, developed, produced and sold with that in mind.
Sorry to return to this s late, been seeing nhs patients all day. Unbelievably none of the ones i saw today are on any form of medication whatsoever. I think i am seeing two this week that are! At a 'retail' cost of a total of about £50 a month for both of them. One is on a particularly expensive drug that is unusual in my field, would usually be a few quid a month per patient in meds if they are prescribed any at all.
Of course jambalaya, plenty more are on, errr, plenty more than that, and plenty stand absolutely zero chance of recovery or even survival without medicine, yet I wonder if you know what proportion if the annual nhs budget is actually spent on medication? of course you know what single cost is by far the largest component of healthcare...