WWW.RLFANS.COM

Having watched my Dad die with dementia & seeing how much time my old Mum spends at the doctors/hospital - usually a couple of times a week - it hits you how much it must cost to keep people alive. You do question the quality of people’s lives. Apart from the odd God-botherer I’m yet to meet someone who doesn’t want their life terminating if they got into a similar condition. It is an endless quest to make people live longer. And some people make a fortune out of the misery, so the pressure will continue.

You will get derided, but I completely agree.

If someone cannot get pregnant, then why are we paying for it to be done falsely, if somone is born with a penis, they are male, if someone is fat, stop eating so much, if someone doesn't like their breasts, tough.

The NHS should be for emergencies, not flights of fancy.

Sack 90% of the administration in the NHS, especially the board members, tax the companies that supply the drugs, kill the nanny state that La(boring) created, return to survival of the fittest.

I’ve not insulted you ever before IR. There was a sad loner called Garbutt, who lived in an abandoned house on Preston Road, who could barely string more than a sentence together. But he was brighter than you.

wotsupcas wrote: I'm afraid the NHS going forward will have to reform or die. The fact is research is finding more and more ways to keep us alive and it comes at a cost. I truly believe that a complete and honest review is needed instead of tinkering around the edges. We all (i hope) want a properly run and funded NHS. How we do that without bankrupting the country I have no idea. It can't be just throwing money at it or the extra cash will just get swallowed up. And I no I will get derided for this but maybe we need to get back to basics and stop funding, for example, IVF or gastric band operations, sex changes etc Since it’s creation the budget for the nhs has risen by 3.7% a year. With our ageing population I’d say that needs to be at least at 4% per year, that is certainly affordable if we (the government) choose to fund it. This article has a nice graphic of how the funding has changed over the years, both Cameron/Clegg and May chose not to properly fund the nhs. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc. ... h-44495598

wotsupcas wrote: I'm afraid the NHS going forward will have to reform or die. The fact is research is finding more and more ways to keep us alive and it comes at a cost. I truly believe that a complete and honest review is needed instead of tinkering around the edges. We all (i hope) want a properly run and funded NHS. How we do that without bankrupting the country I have no idea. It can't be just throwing money at it or the extra cash will just get swallowed up. And I no I will get derided for this but maybe we need to get back to basics and stop funding, for example, IVF or gastric band operations, sex changes etc Since it’s creation the budget for the nhs has risen by 3.7% a year. With our ageing population I’d say that needs to be at least at 4% per year, that is certainly affordable if we (the government) choose to fund it. This article has a nice graphic of how the funding has changed over the years, both Cameron/Clegg and May chose not to properly fund the nhs. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc. ... h-44495598

Back on topic George Clarke’s Council House Scandal was a great programme on Channel 4 looking at our housing crisis, it’s well worth watching on catchup tv.

Some figures from the programme off the top of my head. We previously had 8 million council houses, we now have just 2 million. The rest have been sold through right to buy.

Right to buy, started by Thatcher, allows an individual to buy a £200k house for £60k. Only a tiny fraction of this goes to the local authority, with the majority going to central government. This means the local authority can not afford to replace the houses sold. We once were building almost 200,000 council houses a year, we now build 6,000 a year.

Over 40% of council houses sold under buy to let are now rented out privately, in some areas its over 70%.

Sir Kevin Sinfield wrote: Since it’s creation the budget for the nhs has risen by 3.7% a year. With our ageing population I’d say that needs to be at least at 4% per year, that is certainly affordable if we (the government) choose to fund it. This article has a nice graphic of how the funding has changed over the years, both Cameron/Clegg and May chose not to properly fund the nhs. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc. ... h-44495598 But the last Labour government borrowed heavily to fund the NHS at the rate they did. Leaving the next govt to carry the can. And that really is my point... Its not sustainable. We can't just throw money at the problem without some serious reform. We probably both want the same outcome but differ on how to reach the end goal.

Sir Kevin Sinfield wrote: Since it’s creation the budget for the nhs has risen by 3.7% a year. With our ageing population I’d say that needs to be at least at 4% per year, that is certainly affordable if we (the government) choose to fund it. This article has a nice graphic of how the funding has changed over the years, both Cameron/Clegg and May chose not to properly fund the nhs. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc. ... h-44495598 But the last Labour government borrowed heavily to fund the NHS at the rate they did. Leaving the next govt to carry the can. And that really is my point... Its not sustainable. We can't just throw money at the problem without some serious reform. We probably both want the same outcome but differ on how to reach the end goal.

This isn’t true. In 1997 when Labour came to power debt was 43.4% of GDP. In 2006, the year before the global financial crisis and after 10 years of a Labour government, debt had fallen to 40.7% of GDP.

OK but what was it in 2010 when they left power?

Double post

Debt increased from 2007 because of the global financial crisis and the subsequent bailing out of the bankers, nationalising their losses, not as you claimed borrowing to properly fund the nhs, as was proved with the 1997 and 2006 figures.

In 2010 the conservatives were in power with debt at 72.5% of GDP. This has now skyrocketed to 85.2% of GDP because of the tax cuts they have given to millionaires and multinational companies, despite the devastating cuts to essential services.