Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

For as long as I can remember, politicians and others in the chattering classes have praised our NHS, oppositions have screamed about "threats" to it from political opponents, and governments have vigorously denied such threats. But everyone has, at least in theory, always supported the basic premise of "according to need".

Now all of a sudden they're openly discussing a proposal that will destroy that principle. And it seems to have support from all those same politicians et al. The government wants to legislate a so-called military covenant, and it could involve soldiers explicitly getting priority over other people on a basis that has nothing to do with need.

RIP NHS. Not just the service, the practicalities, the lottery of it, but even its fundamental principles!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pretty normal, soldiers in the US were given top notch treatment. A similar thing existed in the UK as well the 1990s there were many Military hospitals.

In that it pretty much says if you fight and get hurt we'll look out for you. AFAIK Labour closed down some of these hospitals and moved military medical facilities in house to NHS hospitals.

There was also an unpleasant tendency to be denied treatment if you spoke to the papers about it negatively. Much like the tank commander in Iraq when he complained he had his body armour 'requisitioned elsewhere'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pretty normal, soldiers in the US were given top notch treatment. A similar thing existed in the UK as well the 1990s there were many Military hospitals.

That's different. Military hospitals may deprive the NHS of resources (in the same way as private hospitals may), but so long as they're separate, they leave the basic (theoretical) principle of equal access/treatment in the NHS intact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has never been equal treatment though. The triage system is merely going through the motions.

Prisoners of police for example get to jump the queues at waiting rooms.

If you are mates with the doctors you get bumped ahead.

There was even something about MPs getting their own private clinic where they were not to use their real names, funded by the tax payer of course. So any notion of equal treatment is fallacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's different. Military hospitals may deprive the NHS of resources (in the same way as private hospitals may), but so long as they're separate, they leave the basic (theoretical) principle of equal access/treatment in the NHS intact.

We need members of the Armed Forces patched up pronto and back out defending our borders. I'm all for it and don't mind waiting a bit longer. I'm sure you're right that the NHS is being dismantled, but this is not part of the game, this is a red herring.

BTW I predict that as the NHS is dismantled, a few individuals will spot opportunities in the chaos and become extremely wealthy, much as Abramovitch and his friends did when the old Soviet Union was dismantled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For as long as I can remember, politicians and others in the chattering classes have praised our NHS, oppositions have screamed about "threats" to it from political opponents, and governments have vigorously denied such threats. But everyone has, at least in theory, always supported the basic premise of "according to need".

Now all of a sudden they're openly discussing a proposal that will destroy that principle. And it seems to have support from all those same politicians et al. The government wants to legislate a so-called military covenant, and it could involve soldiers explicitly getting priority over other people on a basis that has nothing to do with need.

RIP NHS. Not just the service, the practicalities, the lottery of it, but even its fundamental principles!

the military covenent basically covers issues relating to the after affects of being in the army.

if people come back with post traumatic stress or injuries sustained as a result of being in the army, it shuold be the duty of the state to look after them.

ill bet most people thought thats what goes on already, but essentially if a soldier comes back to the UK and has either physical or psychological problems, at present the state has no formal duty of care towards them. some do get help, but its done in an informal basis.

if someone has problems as a result of being in the army, it should be the very minimum that the state sorts out a problem it created.

Edited by mfp123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some might suggest that having your legs blown off by an IED would make you a priority over the usual degenerate, benefit-laden scum that infest hospital waiting lists, especially since the government closed all of the military hospitals often with specialist equipment and experience.

The NHS is an outmoded concept, the legacy of an interesting historical experiment. To borrow a phrase, the NHS could survive only as long as the populace didn't vote themselves largesse from the public purse, and they did that a long time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For as long as I can remember, politicians and others in the chattering classes have praised our NHS, oppositions have screamed about "threats" to it from political opponents, and governments have vigorously denied such threats. But everyone has, at least in theory, always supported the basic premise of "according to need".

Now all of a sudden they're openly discussing a proposal that will destroy that principle. And it seems to have support from all those same politicians et al. The government wants to legislate a so-called military covenant, and it could involve soldiers explicitly getting priority over other people on a basis that has nothing to do with need.

RIP NHS. Not just the service, the practicalities, the lottery of it, but even its fundamental principles!

I would say you need to be more concerned about the NHS being privatised with this present goverment :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NHS is an outmoded concept, the legacy of an interesting historical experiment. To borrow a phrase, the NHS could survive only as long as the populace didn't vote themselves largesse from the public purse, and they did that a long time ago.

Rubbish

You only need to look at the extra amount of tax's paid by the public since the NHS was formed to know that there is plenty of money paid into the system to keep it funded . Anyone talking like you that cannot afford unlimited private care is no different than turkeys voting for xmas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pretty normal, soldiers in the US were given top notch treatment. A similar thing existed in the UK as well the 1990s there were many Military hospitals.

In that it pretty much says if you fight and get hurt we'll look out for you. AFAIK Labour closed down some of these hospitals and moved military medical facilities in house to NHS hospitals.

There was also an unpleasant tendency to be denied treatment if you spoke to the papers about it negatively. Much like the tank commander in Iraq when he complained he had his body armour 'requisitioned elsewhere'

I was treated twice in a military hospital, via the NHS, in the 80's. It was a very novel experience having doctors and nurses waiting for me rather than the other way round. No patients cluttering up waiting rooms, wards with spare beds, pristine environment, highly professional and military efficient. The hospital took up the overspill from the NHS during peace times and I know where I'd rather be treated - dream on NHS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was treated twice in a military hospital, via the NHS, in the 80's. It was a very novel experience having doctors and nurses waiting for me rather than the other way round. No patients cluttering up waiting rooms, wards with spare beds, pristine environment, highly professional and military efficient. The hospital took up the overspill from the NHS during peace times and I know where I'd rather be treated - dream on NHS.

That's fine. A non-NHS hospital had spare capacity which matched your need, and they sent you there. What matters is that noone else lost out from your good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the military covenent basically covers issues relating to the after affects of being in the army.

if people come back with post traumatic stress or injuries sustained as a result of being in the army, it shuold be the duty of the state to look after them.

ill bet most people thought thats what goes on already, but essentially if a soldier comes back to the UK and has either physical or psychological problems, at present the state has no formal duty of care towards them. some do get help, but its done in an informal basis.

if someone has problems as a result of being in the army, it should be the very minimum that the state sorts out a problem it created.

That is not an argument for dismantling the fundamental principles of the NHS. If soldiers deserve priority treatment, then their employer, the MoD, should provide it from its own budget.

Your argument for priority should apply to many others: obvious cases might be the likes of police, firefighters, social workers, and indeed NHS staff facing Saturday night drunks. It's a slippery slope that'll end up encompassing every possible work-related condition, down to back pain or repetitive strain injury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If some serviceman or woman is injured doing the job that a government elected by us tells them to do, they deserve priority.

I don't think most of the people in this country deserve the armed forces that we have.

I've never had to serve in the armed forces (because previous generations fought to make this a free country) but anyone who joins up has my respect..

Of course, some adipose blobs of humanity may regard having their gastric bands fitted is more important, or golf balls fished out of their ar*es after 'accidentally siting on them', or being fixed after driving while drunk.

The military hospitals should have been kept, but Brown hated funding anything military, while still being cowardly enough to depend on the armed forces to save his worthless political skin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some might suggest that having your legs blown off by an IED would make you a priority over the usual degenerate, benefit-laden scum that infest hospital waiting lists, especially since the government closed all of the military hospitals often with specialist equipment and experience.

The NHS is an outmoded concept, the legacy of an interesting historical experiment. To borrow a phrase, the NHS could survive only as long as the populace didn't vote themselves largesse from the public purse, and they did that a long time ago.

Treated many patients, LP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We don't need members of the Armed Corporation Forces
corrected for you

The military was supposed to be to defend the population of this country. These days they get mostly used to defend or assert the interests of private corporations, often against the interests of the population of this country.

Therefore we don't want or need this kind of armed forces, especially not at taxpayer's expense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not an argument for dismantling the fundamental principles of the NHS. If soldiers deserve priority treatment, then their employer, the MoD, should provide it from its own budget.

Your argument for priority should apply to many others: obvious cases might be the likes of police, firefighters, social workers, and indeed NHS staff facing Saturday night drunks. It's a slippery slope that'll end up encompassing every possible work-related condition, down to back pain or repetitive strain injury.

they are not elevating members of the armed forces as some kind of upper class citizen. its not a case of an ex soldier having toothache and they get put at the top of the list.

its if they lose a leg, or suffer from stress or any illness that results from going into war. and its not even about queue jumping, it simply means they will be treated. its got nothing to do with prioritising them at all.

the physical and psychological effects of going into war is very different from a civilian experience of dealing with drunks.

if someones had their leg blown off from a mine, they should have adequate care and rehabilitation. they dont ask for a special status, they just want help and assitance if they are disadvantged when they come back.

thats not really asking for a lot.

there is a disproportionately high number of ex servicemen that are homeless and on the streets, or those that cant find jobs and adapt to civilian life as theyve been institutionalised all their life.

had they not been in the army, and led a normal life, they would not be as they are, so the state must take some responsibility for it.

Edited by mfp123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many who struggle after leaving the armed forces joined in the first place because the army offers a refuge for young men who can't cope with civilian life, that flaw is exposed when they leave the confines of the forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many who struggle after leaving the armed forces joined in the first place because the army offers a refuge for young men who can't cope with civilian life, that flaw is exposed when they leave the confines of the forces.

Nothing to do with months of expecting to get your legs blown off at any moment in Sangin Province then.

But of course, it's Tony's war so we can't criticize in can we. Hush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't you see that only a deranged individual with no foresight would put themselves in a situation where they would spend 6 months in fear of getting their legs blown off? To believe they might become some sort of hero?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they are not elevating members of the armed forces as some kind of upper class citizen. its not a case of an ex soldier having toothache and they get put at the top of the list.

its if they lose a leg, or suffer from stress or any illness that results from going into war. and its not even about queue jumping, it simply means they will be treated. its got nothing to do with prioritising them at all.

the physical and psychological effects of going into war is very different from a civilian experience of dealing with drunks.

if someones had their leg blown off from a mine, they should have adequate care and rehabilitation. they dont ask for a special status, they just want help and assitance if they are disadvantged when they come back.

thats not really asking for a lot.

there is a disproportionately high number of ex servicemen that are homeless and on the streets, or those that cant find jobs and adapt to civilian life as theyve been institutionalised all their life.

had they not been in the army, and led a normal life, they would not be as they are, so the state must take some responsibility for it.

From what I can gather a lot of servicemen would have been homeless and destitute in the first place due to inability to adapt to normal life but dodged it by signing up. Once their time in the forces runs out, they default to their original state. Or so the psychologist at an inquiry I watched asserted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't you see that only a deranged individual with no foresight would put themselves in a situation where they would spend 6 months in fear of getting their legs blown off? To believe they might become some sort of hero?

It's not deranged really, it's a different set of values. Using conflict to resolve disputes, discipline, taking orders et al are one form of personality and one set of values. These are generally inculcated when young, often by parents who believe they are doing what is best by maming little timmy obedient, well turned out etc etc.

The problem being that those values do not work when looking for a job or operating a bueiness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we're moving to a two tier system. Say there 'might' be a cancerous tumor in your body. The scan can find out.. and its only a 3 month wait in the 'free' system. Otoh if you are willing to pay £600 you can get it tomorrow.

The NHS wil probably expand in staff in all this, hundreds of thousands of workers filling out forms, taking vacations, travelling for meetings and training, auditing each other.. but not much will get done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For as long as I can remember, politicians and others in the chattering classes have praised our NHS, oppositions have screamed about "threats" to it from political opponents, and governments have vigorously denied such threats. But everyone has, at least in theory, always supported the basic premise of "according to need".

Now all of a sudden they're openly discussing a proposal that will destroy that principle. And it seems to have support from all those same politicians et al. The government wants to legislate a so-called military covenant, and it could involve soldiers explicitly getting priority over other people on a basis that has nothing to do with need.

RIP NHS. Not just the service, the practicalities, the lottery of it, but even its fundamental principles!

There is something more serious going on. Since 1948 the Dept of Health has had a legal responsibility to provide comprehensive health provision for the population. That is being repealed in the latest bill. I think the part that is going is the 'comprehensive.' From now on I see health provision becoming patchy and the public will need to pay for co-insurance.

As for a two-tier system, well, civil servants have a very inexpensive fund (they pay about £10 a month I think) which allows them to be treated in a special civil service hospital if they have to wait more than a few weeks on the NHS.

Edited by izzy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I can gather a lot of servicemen would have been homeless and destitute in the first place due to inability to adapt to normal life but dodged it by signing up. Once their time in the forces runs out, they default to their original state. Or so the psychologist at an inquiry I watched asserted.

A story told well by "Andy McNab", whose own story tells how his time in the forces helped him turn from a violent thug to a person with something to contribute. Controlling the violence was the thing he had to do to make the transition from plain soldier to elite SAS.

But none of this is relevant to the NHS. The NHS is (or was) supposed to be neither capitalist (priority based on what you pay) nor feudal (priority based on who you are). If ex-squaddies need treatment, they should be treated, but based on need like anyone else. Or if society thinks they deserve better than that, then it must be for their employer the MoD to make and finance any provision over and above that of the NHS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.