WTF Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Is there in fact anything wrong with a politician doing a U turn? if you do a U turn in such a short period of time, it shows you have made a bad or wrong decission in the firstplace. this goes to show that the idea was not properly looked at and the causes for the U turn not found in the first place WHICH THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN if someone was doing their job properly and effectively. I disagree - I think Eddie Teare and his team of healthcare experts came to a conclusion about the best way forward on both counts, then realised a sizeable chunk of people were against the measures. Doesn't make the original conclusion wrong though. but they are no diffrerent now as when they started to look at changes. care costs lots of money, if they are looking at saving money, it stands to reason they are looking at cutting back on professional care. it is alright for mr Teare to chirp on about caring for people at home, but as we know, many of the 'carers' at home are family members who have been lumbered and are getting paid a pittance to do the job of professional carers at the expense of their own lives and careers and who themselves are complaining about the homecare system!!. that is how care at home will save money. the carer is family with maybe? a professional once in a blue moon to have a look at things. IF proper health services require more money, taxes should go up to cover the costs, not cut the services to make the books balance. modern society and its fiscal situation does not really allow for a family member to stay at home to care for aged relatives like the good old days where the mans salary could cover all the living costs of the household. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 What is Eddie Teare failing to do? Adequately compensate locum pharmacists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee54 Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 The elderly that are now in health care or may be needing it have paid more into the DHSS than the current generation, not only that many have been through a world war to ensure that we have the life style we now have. What gets me is that the elderly are treated like old cars, once they stop working no money gets spent on them and are sent to the scrap heap. Is that really the way we should treat them No they fought for a free health service so should receive it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 Not denying that the elderly deserve proper care, but the NHS was established in 1948, no? People hardly fought for free healthcare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 Seconding what was said above, no one in the public actually fought for the NHS, and the Manx one is mostly a copy anyway. Even the NHS is just a watered-down form of the recommendations of the Beveridge report. Contrary to popular belief, the welfare state was not a big draw for voters post-war. The big issues were first and foremost housing, and then a desire for a return to normality. No one 'fought a World War' for social services reform. Furthermore, far from 'being thrown on the scrap heap,' care of the elderly is one of the major aspects of state expenditure, and one of the biggest causes for concern in terms of future viability for state welfare provision. Whilst the elderly may have made greater NI contributions than the current generation, that's only because they've been alive longer, and its a fair bet rates are higher now then they were in the past. Of course, the DHSS could not be funded out of NI alone, and as such receives a sizeable amount from other sources (most significantly general taxation). Notably, Peter Karran recently proposed (In the press, as usual) those born after 1980 should pay more, in order to fund the care of the current and near-future elderly. Why he feels it is acceptable to discrimate against young people is unclear, though I doubt many under-30s vote for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 Was it not Dennis Healey who replied that it was like "Being savaged by a dead sheep" after being criticized by the mild mannered Tory Minister Geoffrey Howe in 1978. The same would seem to apply here although maybe its a fight between two dead sheep in this instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee54 Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 Not denying that the elderly deserve proper care, but the NHS was established in 1948, no? People hardly fought for free healthcare. During the war those injured received free medical care but after the war Hospitals and Doctors surgeries were full of patients as a result of the war and these were the ones that then had to pay for any treatment. They may not have fought directly for the creation of the NHS, but the aftermath of the war did help in the creation of it. Found this article which you may find interesting. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/he...nhs-856091.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 Hospitals were not 'dire' as the article claims. Yes there was great disparity, but many of the hospitals were actually centres of excellence and these were not confined to the rich. Hospitals and Doctors surgeries would not have been full of patients as a result of the war post-war, as Britian itself had not been under attack for nearly two years by that point, excluding the rocket attacks. The creation of something like the NHS was recommended in 1942 as part of the wide-ranging Beveridge Report. It had a strong proponent in Bevan, but it did not feature strongly in Labour's election manifesto (which was more concerned with nationalising industry) and was not the big vote winner everyone thought it was. This was something driven by a massive lefty in Bevan, not by popular demand, which was your orignal point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee54 Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 Hospitals were not 'dire' as the article claims. Yes there was great disparity, but many of the hospitals were actually centres of excellence and these were not confined to the rich. Hospitals and Doctors surgeries would not have been full of patients as a result of the war post-war, as Britian itself had not been under attack for nearly two years by that point, excluding the rocket attacks. The creation of something like the NHS was recommended in 1942 as part of the wide-ranging Beveridge Report. It had a strong proponent in Bevan, but it did not feature strongly in Labour's election manifesto (which was more concerned with nationalising industry) and was not the big vote winner everyone thought it was. This was something driven by a massive lefty in Bevan, not by popular demand, which was your orignal point. UK Hospitals and Doctors surgeries were bursting after the war by returning soldiers, and remained so for many many years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 The Manx NHS was never a copy of the UK NHS - the Manx NHS was set up before the UK's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.