General Random Conversation..

[NJS 3978]

I could be wrong, (unusual), but I think you'll find the NHS was a Tory invention, nicked by labour.

The cunts opposed its foundation above and beyond what any opposition has done to any peice of legislation ever. As I mentioned this led to Bevan's "lower than vermin" quote.

[Gemmill 34469]

When CT's obesity eventually catches up with him, he'll lament his support of the dismantling of the NHS.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

The cunts opposed its foundation above and beyond what any opposition has done to any peice of legislation ever. As I mentioned this led to Bevan's "lower than vermin" quote.

"During the war the Conservatives produced the first White Paper on a future service in which local authorities would lead an NHS"

 

Before Bevan nicked it.

 

Same old Labour.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Or

 

o, it’s the silly season again, and politicians are once more gripped by an irrational argument. No change there.

 

But for those of us who study history, the latest furore over the NHS is positively nauseating, with people apparently split into the camps of those who decry its very right to exist, and those who suddenly pretend they haven’t spent the last few years grumbling about how it’s in dire need of reform.

 

Part of this division is built upon a myth – a boil that needs to be lanced. We’re so used to Labour politicians churning out the line that Labour gave us the NHS, that we’ve begun to unthinkingly accept it. When Ian McCartney MP celebrated Labour’s centenary in 2006, he actually shed a tear for the NHS as Labour’s greatest triumph. Anyone familiar with 1940s history will tell you that this version of events is a cruel lie.

 

The NHS owes its existence to the climate of wartime British politics, not least the vastly expanded access to basic healthcare which came with conscription, and the subsequent rise in expectations. As Paul Addison outlined over 30 years ago in his landmark The Road to 1945, the wartime coalition of 1940-5 fostered a remarkable degree of consensus. In social policy, this resulted in the seminal 1942 report Social Insurance and Allied Services, chaired by the Liberal economist William Beveridge – better known as the Beveridge Report. In this, Beveridge set out a comprehensive state plan of social care. Section 19 of the report is the first public mention of a “National Health Service.”

 

The report was enormously influential, and what cannot be stressed enough is that in the subsequent 1945 general election, all three parties endorsed the Beveridge Report.

 

Revealingly, all three parties had NHS proposals in their 1945 manifestoes. The Conservatives actually had the longest section in their manifesto, pledging:

 

The health services of the country will be made available to all citizens. Everyone will contribute to the cost, and no one will be denied the attention, the treatment or the appliances he requires because he cannot afford them. We propose to create a comprehensive health service covering the whole range of medical treatment from the general practitioner to the specialist, and from the hospital to convalescence and rehabilitation

[NJS 3978]

So why did they oppose its introduction so vehemently?

[Gemmill 34469]

CT studies history. Doesn't read books.

[Park Life 70]

Heart disease and things like Diabetes are some of the biggest costs now to the NHS.

 

Tax sugar and fat...ie take aways/fast food/fizzy drinks.

 

Use the tax for the NHS.

 

Next.

[Renton 17783]

My point is Nice has to tell some cancer patients, "sorry, we can't afford to keep you alive a bit longer because we can't afford to".

It's a bit more complicated than that, but yes, NICE ration healthcare. Not sure what your point is though, I don't think anyone is claiming there is a bottomless pit. My point was, it's done fairly, paid through general taxation and delivered according to need and not ability to pay.

 

The link I showed you proved that the system is one of the best in the world, and certainly probably the most efficient. I therefore don't agree it should fundamentally change, especially to a more right wing American model. Your posts have constantly indicated that you do, out of necessity (which is a lie, because we could always spend more money like other countries do).

 

You've now come up with your usual trick of claiming 'they're all the same anyway', something you conveniently do regarding any Labour achievements whilst still solely blaming them for things that went wrong, irrespective of the reality.

 

And now after a bit of googling you've convinced yourself the NHS was a Tory creation and you're a historian.

[Kid Dynamite 5911]

Not when you are just posting garbage man. There's but a dag paper between torys and labour on this. There's just not enough money which is why the likes of Nice has pick and choose which drugs people can get.

 

You seem to be leaping in a few years from privatisation of services to little Billy having to pay for his tonsils out. All politicians want it free at the point of use.

 

And all of this rhetoric when we have a Tory coalition that for the last 4 years has put more money into the NHS than labour promised too if they'd won in 2010.

That's not an answer. I provided stats and studies, you're just stating you're usual shite about 'they're all the same anyway'. No they aren't. Not by a Long shot when it comes to the NHS

[Park Life 70]

Data actually shows it's even better than the much vaunted Canadian system.

[Kid Dynamite 5911]

CT googles anything he can find to back up his eternally flawed arguments

[Park Life 70]

Along with football and pubs it is the trinity....

[Dr Gloom 19825]

No, the point is why fix what's not broken?

The list of Tories with vested interests in privatisation and their hatred of socialism might be a clue.

Thieves tbh http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fury-tory-party-donors-handed-3123469#.UzCIeOF01Rk.twitter

[Dr Gloom 19825]

Or

o, it’s the silly season again, and politicians are once more gripped by an irrational argument. No change there.

But for those of us who study history, the latest furore over the NHS is positively nauseating, with people apparently split into the camps of those who decry its very right to exist, and those who suddenly pretend they haven’t spent the last few years grumbling about how it’s in dire need of reform.

Part of this division is built upon a myth – a boil that needs to be lanced. We’re so used to Labour politicians churning out the line that Labour gave us the NHS, that we’ve begun to unthinkingly accept it. When Ian McCartney MP celebrated Labour’s centenary in 2006, he actually shed a tear for the NHS as Labour’s greatest triumph. Anyone familiar with 1940s history will tell you that this version of events is a cruel lie.

The NHS owes its existence to the climate of wartime British politics, not least the vastly expanded access to basic healthcare which came with conscription, and the subsequent rise in expectations. As Paul Addison outlined over 30 years ago in his landmark The Road to 1945, the wartime coalition of 1940-5 fostered a remarkable degree of consensus. In social policy, this resulted in the seminal 1942 report Social Insurance and Allied Services, chaired by the Liberal economist William Beveridge – better known as the Beveridge Report. In this, Beveridge set out a comprehensive state plan of social care. Section 19 of the report is the first public mention of a “National Health Service.”

The report was enormously influential, and what cannot be stressed enough is that in the subsequent 1945 general election, all three parties endorsed the Beveridge Report.

Revealingly, all three parties had NHS proposals in their 1945 manifestoes. The Conservatives actually had the longest section in their manifesto, pledging:

The health services of the country will be made available to all citizens. Everyone will contribute to the cost, and no one will be denied the attention, the treatment or the appliances he requires because he cannot afford them. We propose to create a comprehensive health service covering the whole range of medical treatment from the general practitioner to the specialist, and from the hospital to convalescence and rehabilitation

This is just copied and pasted straight from a google search innit

[Gemmill 34469]

This is just copied and pasted straight from a google search innit

http://www.libdemvoice.org/setting-the-record-straight-labour-and-the-nhs-15930.html

[Dr Gloom 19825]

I knew there were too many long words in it and not enough cliches

 

Quote your source at least next time CT, you plagiariser

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Data actually shows it's even better than the much vaunted Canadian system.

Apart from the dying bit

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Thieves tbh http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fury-tory-party-donors-handed-3123469#.UzCIeOF01Rk.twitter

Did you read this before you posted it?

 

But a spokesman said: “Circle has never made any donations to a political party. The vast majority of Circle’s NHS contracts actually started under the last Labour government.”

[Ausman 0]

Data actually shows it's even better than the much vaunted Canadian system.

 

 

The Canadian system is absolutely shit, massive waiting lists but if your willing to pay, you can go ahead of the cue.

[Ayatollah Hermione 12767]

Watching Cirque De Peking on Sky Arts. Amazing how much stuff a human is capable off but most of us never achieve.

 

Lucy'esque

 

[JJ 0]

I must admit to not having taken a great deal of interest in this campaign. I did watch the last debate and found it a bit depressing that these two blokes were basically the I formation sources for the masses on such a historical matter.

 

Darling is a bit of a wet blanket yes man and Salmond has always made my skin crawl (and I'm a Tory)

 

As for your Scottish points the bottom line is Salmond / the yes campaign are promising jam tomorrow. They're selling a dream and seem to be promising everything to anyone. That's bound to sound sexier than the no campaign , who boringly are trying to hammer home that having a successful viable economy is the bedrock of all else.

 

You can write whatever you like into a constitution but as every family working to a budget knows, if income goes down cuts have to be made. To continue to pay for one service others must be cut.

 

Basically a whole country is risking its stability on Salmonds fag packet calculations to be President.

 

You say the no campaign is hammering home about the successful viable economy, yet a page later admit the UK is skint and can't afford to run a successful NHS. The NHS has run fine for decades, and yet all of a sudden we're stripping it away.

 

The only success in the UK economy is that it's big. The country is in over a trillion quid of debt. We were told 10 years ago that the UK would essentially go bankrupt if the debt to GDP ratio was over 70%. It's now at 90%. The UK is broke. Which is exactly why Darling can't use the "successful economy" as a selling point with a straight face, as he had a fair hand in it getting this out of control. Darling instead sneers at Salmond when he mentions Scotland could be like Norway with no real comeback. When Norway discovered oil, they put massive portions of it in a fund and because of this Norway is a success. The UK discovered oil at the same time, and instead pissed it away and have nothing to show for it.

 

Scotland has been a net contributor to the UK every single year since 1980. Scotland can afford to pay it's own way even without oil. The North Sea oil (and the potential of Clair Ridge) is a massive massive bonus.

 

For me it isn't about Labour or Tory or Lib Dem or even the SNP. We've got a chance to control our own resources and control our political destiny. It's not FREEDOM as I'm sure some are shouting. It's just we hear the arguments about Scotland wanting public services that are being privatised. We hear Yes say the public services are under threat and Better Together saying "it doesn't matter, we can control it." But the real question is if Scotland want such different services to the rest of the UK, then why the hell stay in a political union? It makes no sense.

 

The campaigns themselves haven't been great. One side is saying "If you vote yes your cock will get massive!" while the other says "aye but if you vote yes it'll fall off!"

 

The biggest thing for me is only a fool would say that Westminster would govern Scotland better than it would govern itself. We already govern ourselves better with limited powers. Holyrood spends £50 million a year to Westminster just to make sure the people of Scotland don't have to pay the ridiculous bedroom tax. Scotland allows free prescriptions. Scotland allows free university education. We're already better off while being a net contributor to the UK and while only getting a population share of the oil instead of a geographical share. Sure we still have big problems, but I think we'll be better off going it alone.

 

Sure, Salmond is promising a lot and will probably not deliver it all if we do vote yes. But the other side are offering us absolutely nothing and telling us "it could be worse." It's laughable.

 

I don't want to go on about this too much as I know it's not of huge interest south of the border, but I'll bet that if we do vote no, by about 2018 it'll be nigh on impossible to find anyone up here who'll openly admit and ably justify voting no.

[Renton 17783]

As much as you try to avoid it, you've avoided the elephant in the room, which is your currency problem. It's a shame Scotland didn't go independent years ago, when the oil reserves were still there. Now I would see an independent Scotland more akin to Ireland than Norway. Salmond is understandably embarrassed about his bigging up of the Celtic tiger economies pre crash. He was wrong then, what makes him right now?

 

No, the success of the yes campaign will be further devolution and powers, not independence, which isn't feasible in such a small population with some of the worst social deprivation in western Europe. That's not to be sniffed at though.

[ewerk 26351]

 

 

The only success in the UK economy is that it's big. The country is in over a trillion quid of debt. We were told 10 years ago that the UK would essentially go bankrupt if the debt to GDP ratio was over 70%. It's now at 90%. The UK is broke.

 

And yet with your share of the debt you'll have a debt ratio of 74% Any further borrowing from the markets is going to be a tough sell for a new nation.

[Park Life 70]

Luxembourg has an economy x6 that of Scotland.

 

Scotland will vote no.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

 

 

 

The campaigns themselves haven't been great. One side is saying "If you vote yes your cock will get massive!" while the other says "aye but if you vote yes it'll fall off!"

 

 

 

 

The way it sounds to me is that you (not you personally), have a 5 inch knob. Not great but gets you by. Independence is a procedure being touted and if it works you get an extra inch, but there's also a good chance you"'ll be left with only 2 inches.

 

 

It must be very tempting being promised all the goodies of wonderland I would just be concerned by the person promising you all this and the lack of meat on the bones of the white paper.