Fork-tongued Harman

[Opinionated]

It is not an insult, it is fact.

It may be your opinion that I am "ridiculous", but it is not fact! Oxford English dictionary definition of ridiculous .adj. causing mockery or derision; absurd - ORIGIN Latin ridiculous 'laughable'; you may think so (many people would probably agree) but for what it's worth my opinions are based on my own analysis of facts and experiences and are also similarly held by other people. Are you suggesting that anyone who holds a different opinion or interprets statistics differently to yourself is ridiculous? You can only be forgiven a certain amount due to the arrogance of youth.

[Midas]

We've come a long way away from Miss Harman. Never mind, privatising NHS and the Beeb need an airing. It stands to reason that for as long as we expect treatment at aver-increasing cost, something has to give. When challenged on costs, the drug companies plead R&D and hospitals the cost of technology. Possibly justified, but who knows?

Privatisation is already happening through PFI and it ain't cheap. What we lose is proper medical care and we gain league tables populated by tick-box exercises orchestrated by armies of managers whose primary interests lie not in clinical care but their own jobs, salaries and government cash awards for doing admin. PFI is, in essence, a mortgage taken out with "service support" organisations whose only motivator is profit. I'm not against profit, only the stupidity of its origininating credo. Now that Alitstair Campbell is back, the Beeb's turn may come and it won't be pretty.

I'd agree that both issues need airing, and although we've been down this road before, and will undoubtedly do so again, I for one stand by my assertions that the NHS in particular is way overdue a really massive shake-up. As LA rightly points out, we (the taxpayers) cannot go on supporting an increasingly costly and increasingly inefficient public healthcare service for ever; something will have to give.

Although a great believer in effective privatisation, I will agree that we do need some form of basic 'free' healthcare service where emergency treatment can be carried out and where routine GP visits are included. However above and beyond this I firmly believe that people should have the option of purchasing different levels of private medical cover to meet their own needs and requirements. Medical treatment based on this could either be carried out in totally private hospitals or clinics or as part of the partially privatised NHS where the extra fees could go some way to offsetting the 'free' services.

Hand in hand with this though the NHS must improve its efficiency, financial and management, which I doubt anyone could deny is abysmal. Also hand in hand with this, people who opt for higher levels of cover should be able to receive a rebate on part of their NI contributions; in any other sphere of life if we have to pay twice for something there's a huge outcry, so why should it be different with healthcare?

I'd also look to significantly removing non-essential and peripheral services from the HNS. For instance why should anyone in hospital be given free food; if they were at home they'd have to pay for it, so why, just because they're ill, should food suddenly become free? I'm not suggesting making a profit from it, simply breaking even on costs would save many millions of pounds a year. Likewise I don't believe that treatment for self-inflicted injuries and illnesses should be free. If for example a patient has been warned about the consequences of smoking by their GP and they choose to ignore those warnings, or someone has been injured taking part in sports which are acknowledged as potentially dangerous, why should the taxpayer be expected to pick up the bill for their treatment?

Before anyone starts crying out 'elitism' and 'what about the workers' on the private insurance aspect, can I point out that right now the biggest single contributors to private healthcare schemes in the UK are trades unions and employee's federations or associations representing the average British worker. It's in everyone's interest to get people who're off ill and thus unproductive, back to work as soon as possible, and the small additional costs of medical insurance are but a fraction of the total losses which can otherwise be incurred because of long delays in getting often less than top class treatment on the NHS.

[LA]

It may be your opinion that I am "ridiculous", but it is not fact! Oxford English dictionary definition of ridiculous .adj. causing mockery or derision; absurd - ORIGIN Latin ridiculous 'laughable'; you may think so (many people would probably agree) but for what it's worth my opinions are based on my own analysis of facts and experiences and are also similarly held by other people. Are you suggesting that anyone who holds a different opinion or interprets statistics differently to yourself is ridiculous? You can only be forgiven a certain amount due to the arrogance of youth.

I think you have misunderstood me.
You can have whatever view you want, whether it be Labour, Conservative, Communist or Fascist.

I stated that your blind bias against the Conservative Party was ridiculous.

[LA]

I'd agree that both issues need airing, and although we've been down this road before, and will undoubtedly do so again, I for one stand by my assertions that the NHS in particular is way overdue a really massive shake-up. As LA rightly points out, we (the taxpayers) cannot go on supporting an increasingly costly and increasingly inefficient public healthcare service for ever; something will have to give.

Although a great believer in effective privatisation, I will agree that we do need some form of basic 'free' healthcare service where emergency treatment can be carried out and where routine GP visits are included. However above and beyond this I firmly believe that people should have the option of purchasing different levels of private medical cover to meet their own needs and requirements. Medical treatment based on this could either be carried out in totally private hospitals or clinics or as part of the partially privatised NHS where the extra fees could go some way to offsetting the 'free' services.

Hand in hand with this though the NHS must improve its efficiency, financial and management, which I doubt anyone could deny is abysmal. Also hand in hand with this, people who opt for higher levels of cover should be able to receive a rebate on part of their NI contributions; in any other sphere of life if we have to pay twice for something there's a huge outcry, so why should it be different with healthcare?

I'd also look to significantly removing non-essential and peripheral services from the HNS. For instance why should anyone in hospital be given free food; if they were at home they'd have to pay for it, so why, just because they're ill, should food suddenly become free? I'm not suggesting making a profit from it, simply breaking even on costs would save many millions of pounds a year. Likewise I don't believe that treatment for self-inflicted injuries and illnesses should be free. If for example a patient has been warned about the consequences of smoking by their GP and they choose to ignore those warnings, or someone has been injured taking part in sports which are acknowledged as potentially dangerous, why should the taxpayer be expected to pick up the bill for their treatment?

Before anyone starts crying out 'elitism' and 'what about the workers' on the private insurance aspect, can I point out that right now the biggest single contributors to private healthcare schemes in the UK are trades unions and employee's federations or associations representing the average British worker. It's in everyone's interest to get people who're off ill and thus unproductive, back to work as soon as possible, and the small additional costs of medical insurance are but a fraction of the total losses which can otherwise be incurred because of long delays in getting often less than top class treatment on the NHS.

Indeed. The NHS does need a cut in the budget, but this can be satisfied by efficiency savings.

The NHS can be considered a black hole of finances. The NHS itself doesn't improve, but the finances it consumes continuously increases - but then again, that could just be the Brown policy of throw money at things.

I do believe we need to encourage people to go private. Those who go private should get a majority rebate of the National Insurance contribution. By this I mean if they are private, for every pound they pay, they should get more than fifty pence back.

This means going private, won't cost as much. Additionally, by still charging those on private a small amount in National Insurance, the Government can still collect money towards the NHS.

But all and all, the NHS does need MAJOR reform.

[Opinionated]

I
I stated that your blind bias against the Conservative Party was ridiculous.

Not really so blind as yours against Labour as I have actually experienced (whilst an adult) both a Labour and a Tory government, under four different Prime Ministers. All of which were crap btw, for differing reasons.

[LA]

Not really so blind as yours against Labour as I have actually experienced (whilst an adult) both a Labour and a Tory government, under four different Prime Ministers. All of which were crap btw, for differing reasons.

I have no bias against Labour.
I have a bias against Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and New Labour.
However, I will often defend some of New Labours decisions, as well as give credit where credit is due.

[Opinionated]

I have no bias against Labour.
I have a bias against Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and New Labour.

So do I, however I have often heard you say things like "ridiculous left wing argument" etc. Which would suggest otherwise.

However, I will often defend some of New Labours decisions, as well as give credit where credit is due.

Really? Which ones? I've really tried hard to think of one policy of Thatcher/Major I could agree with, and whilst I can see that they benefitted some people, I cannot think of one I wholeheartedly supported (or half-heartedly actually), perhaps that's just the ideologue in me.

[LA]

So do I, however I have often heard you say things like "ridiculous left wing argument" etc. Which would suggest
otherwise.

Yes. That means your argument was ridiculous and was defending the left wing.

Really? Which ones? I've really tried hard to think of one policy of Thatcher/Major I could agree with, and whilst I can see that they benefitted some people, I cannot think of one I wholeheartedly supported (or half-heartedly actually), perhaps that's just the ideologue in me.

To be fair to Labour, The Gurkhas signed up to the army voluntarily. They knew not all of them would be allowed to settle, and before Labour, they knew none of them would be able to settle in Britain.

So, Legally the Gurkhas have no argument. Morally on the other hand they have a very big argument.

Labour has increased the education budget, which has meant the college I go too, but two new buildings rather than crappy wooden ones.

No policies you agree with?
Selling council houses to poor people?
Removing the power of the trade unions?
Lowering inflation and interest rates drastically?

Margaret Thatcher herself was brilliant. Ignoring policies, her personality, power, determination, will etc were phenomenal

[Opinionated]

Labour has increased the education budget, which has meant the college I go too, but two new buildings rather than crappy wooden ones.

Yes I will agree that Nulab started to do some good in education, I also applaud Sure Start/ Children's centres and investment in libraries. Then again is that enough to let them off the introduction of tuition fees? Not for me.

No policies you agree with?

We've been here before LA and you have not managed to convince me, I think we will always have to disagree, it's that ideologue in me.

Selling council houses to poor people?

Short sighted policy designed to draw votes from non Tory voters, has contributed to current housing crisis. Ideologically opposed I'm afraid

Removing the power of the trade unions?

Do I think they needed reigning in? Yes, and I've always been an advocate of OMOV (Thatch can't take credit for that though), however she went as far as to castrate the unions which have traditionally been a force of good (IMO).
You know I have a problem with the way she rode roughshod over them because it literally destroyed people.

Lowering inflation and interest rates drastically?

Not worth the price of high unemployment and drastic underfunding of public services.

Margaret Thatcher herself was brilliant. Ignoring policies, her personality, power, determination, will etc were phenomenal

In your opinion, in mine she was a mad, power hungry, virtual despot who first put the country on direction for it's current crisis (morally and financially). We are diametrically opposed and I always knew I was heavily biased (I have tried to point out to you why - experience etc.) against the Tories, I just refute the idea that it is ridiculous to be so. I will say one thing for her, she said what she meant and (usually) did as she said, also she was popular (with at least half the population).

[Midas]

... Ideologically opposed I'm afraid ...

Going a bit off-topic here, but don't you think that there are times and situations when sticking to ideology on any particular policy, not specifically this one of selling council houses, can be the wrong thing to do? Aren't ideologically based politics one of the reasons the whole political system has got itself into such a mess, with parties on both sides of the fence concentrating more of satisfying ideology than doing what's right for the majority of people in the country?

[LA]

Yes I will agree that Nulab started to do some good in education, I also applaud Sure Start/ Children's centres and investment in libraries. Then again is that enough to let them off the introduction of tuition fees? Not for me.

Tories, I just refute the idea that it is ridiculous to be so. I will say one thing for her, she said what she meant and (usually) did as she said, also she was popular (with at least half the population).

Opinionated, it seems to me you dislike it when Conservatives try to help poor people. So you support Conservatives making the poor poorer?

Thatcher sold off council houses to help the poor. Whenever the Conservatives do something good, you will just dismiss it as "oh they only did it to get elected".

Its ridiculous at best.

[georgepopovic]

"Margaret Thatcher herself was brilliant. Ignoring policies, her personality, power, determination, will etc were phenomenal".

Don't know how to do quotes, but the above was used to justify Mrs. T. Can we think of anyone else to whom these qualities could apply? Mugabe, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Kim, Blair, the Bushes, Scargill?

Enough political stars. Ed.

[LA]

"Margaret Thatcher herself was brilliant. Ignoring policies, her personality, power, determination, will etc were phenomenal".

Don't know how to do quotes, but the above was used to justify Mrs. T. Can we think of anyone else to whom these qualities could apply? Mugabe, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Kim, Blair, the Bushes, Scargill?

Enough political stars. Ed.

Mugabe = Dictator who wouldn't is the cause of Zimbabwe's plight
Blair = Moron with no beliefs
Bush = well, I dont think I need to put anything here.

Mrs T was one of the best Prime Minister's we have ever had.

[Opinionated]

Opinionated, it seems to me you dislike it when Conservatives try to help poor people. So you support Conservatives making the poor poorer?

Thatcher sold off council houses to help the poor. Whenever the Conservatives do something good, you will just dismiss it as "oh they only did it to get elected".

The Conservatives always make the poor poorer (not that NuLab has done anything to narrow the gap), allowing some working class people to buy their council houses, just created a group of more disadvantaged people ie. the homeless! Thatcher's motivation for right to buy were political and mercenary, if it had anything to do with helping the poor she would not have made it a requirement that most of the profit be retained rather than reinvested in the building of replacement social housing for the future. You think it was a good thing, I think on balance (factoring in the resulting shortage of housing) that in actual fact it would have been better (if the real purpose was to help social mobility as is suggested) to have made it easier for tennents to buy in the private market. That makes us disagree it makes neither opinion ridiculous just arrived at via different criteria of analysis. Stop resorting to simply dismissing an argument without countering the points made yourself.

Its ridiculous at best.

You're going to have to learn to use a thesaurus because it is beginning to look like ridiculous is the only negative adjective you know.