No Fault Evictions

[NickDReed]

Christ, this thread has gone off topic....

What should be remembered when considering the inception of the NHS is that it was assumed that improved access to healthcare would lead to a healthier population and subsequently a reduced burden on the NHS.

What has unfolded over the past 76 years is anything but what was anticipated.

 

[paulrbarnard]

Yes we all know of eccentrics and others on the fringe of society but in general poverty in all its various manifestations is not a life style choice.
It's possibly the silliest and laziest idea ever to come from the right!

Yet you freely use similar eccentrics at the other end of the spectrum to make you case.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

And Democratic in North Korea.

Any Country with "democratic" in the name. Democratic Republic of the Congo?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Christ, this thread has gone off topic....

What should be remembered when considering the inception of the NHS is that it was assumed that improved access to healthcare would lead to a healthier population and subsequently a reduced burden on the NHS.

What has unfolded over the past 76 years is anything but what was anticipated.

A letter in the press a while ago from a retired surgeon said his wife, a retired nurse was told when she trained in the mid '60s that the NHS was designed and set up to last only twenty years, by which time everyone would be healthy.

 

[Jacob]

Eccentrics? Are you referring to the majority of the working class as eccentrics? After all, there have to be those with the ambition that manage those that don't, right? There has to be a big workforce managed by a lesser number of experienced managers. We find our own levels.

Remember, Jacob, relative poverty results from whatever life throws at you and how you deal with it... Real, absolute, poverty doesn't exist here.

When do you get real poverty? Point of starvation?
One simple definition says you are not in poverty if you can afford a loaf of bread tomorrow.
Relative poverty is the issue.

 

[paulrbarnard]

A letter in the press a while ago from a retired surgeon said his wife, a retired nurse was told when she trained in the mid '60s that the NHS was designed and set up to last only twenty years, by which time everyone would be healthy.

By the standards of the 60’s they probably were.
However standards keep rising and the cost of meeting those standards keeps rising too. Personally I have no issue with paying more for the NHS which is used by everyone. Less happy about funding things like HS2.

 

[Jacob]

Christ, this thread has gone off topic....

What should be remembered when considering the inception of the NHS is that it was assumed that improved access to healthcare would lead to a healthier population and subsequently a reduced burden on the NHS.

It certainly has led to a much healthier and more long-lived population. Average age of death in UK has almost doubled in 100 years. (Men 48 now 82)
Lots of other factors of course - modern hygiene being the biggest and cheapest.
Long may it continue. The point where more investment brings little return is still a long way off.

 

[paulrbarnard]

When do you get real poverty? Point of starvation?
One simple definition says you are not in poverty if you can afford a loaf of bread tomorrow.
Relative poverty is the issue.

That the crux of the problem. Real poverty is when you can’t eat or have nowhere to live. It’s not when you don’t earn enough to afford a car, cigarettes, alcohol, flat screen TV, week in Spain, latest Nike trainers….

 

[NickDReed]

It certainly has led to a much healthier and more long lived population. Average age of death in UK has almost doubled in 100 years. Lots of other factors of course - hygiene being the biggest and cheapest.

I'd agree with 'long lived', not sure I would with 'much healthier'.

I think would be an argument that there is more chronic illness now than ever, but there will be multiple different contributing factors involved in that, not least that the population if more long lived.

And now I am responsible for this thread going further off topic!..........

 

[Jacob]

That the crux of the problem. Real poverty is when you can’t eat or have nowhere to live. It’s not when you don’t earn enough to afford a car, cigarettes, alcohol, flat screen TV, week in Spain, latest Nike trainers….

Yes the poor shouldn't expect to live a normal life - it's all their own fault!
Sack-cloth and ashes anybody?

 

[Jacob]

I'd agree with 'long lived', not sure I would with 'much healthier'.

....

Living longer is a pretty good indicator of better health.

 

[paulrbarnard]

Yes the poor shouldn't expect to live a normal life - it's all their own fault!
Sack-cloth and ashes anybody?

Depends on your definition of normal life. I never had overseas holidays as a kid. We didn’t have a TV when they were first available, heck I didn’t even have a radio until I was in my teens. The problem I think a lot of people have with the definition of poverty today is that it is a far higher standard of living than we grew up with. Yes times move on but basic essentials remain the same. Luxuries have become people expectation.
I’m fine with supporting people who need the help but do have problems with the expectation of normal. There should be a chasm between normal and entitled it seems to be a grey line in the socialist world view. I do have experience of people who really take the wee with the benifits system, and I do realise they are the exception, but find comfortably off retired socialists spouting about poverty and twisting comments to attempt to cast the poster as uncaring, or in one extreme a Nazi, as indicative of the real problem in society. That being keyboard evangelism.

 

[NickDReed]

Living longer is a pretty good indicator of better health.

If your sole criteria for health is a heart that continues to pump blood.

 

[Jacob]

Depends on your definition of normal life. I never had overseas holidays as a kid. We didn’t have a TV when they were first available, heck I didn’t even have a radio until I was in my teens. The problem I think a lot of people have with the definition of poverty today is that it is a far higher standard of living than we grew up with. Yes times move on but basic essentials remain the same. Luxuries have become people expectation.
I’m fine with supporting people who need the help but do have problems with the expectation of normal. There should be a chasm between normal and entitled it seems to be a grey line in the socialist world view. I do have experience of people who really take the wee with the benifits system, and I do realise they are the exception, but find comfortably off retired socialists spouting about poverty and twisting comments to attempt to cast the poster as uncaring, or in one extreme a Nazi, as indicative of the real problem in society. That being keyboard evangelism.

So it's sack cloth and ashes then? Poverty = near death?
You've missed the point entirely.
In a civilised world, the point of welfare and all the other public services which people get and are entitled to, is to enable them to live a normal life without all the secondary consequences of poverty. To look after themselves well and in turn to contribute to society when opportunities arrive.
Not sure why the right are so obsessed by entitlement, or its converse, and why it's the minimal entitlements of the less well off which worries them most.

 

[Jacob]

If your sole criteria for health is a heart that continues to pump blood.

It isn't the sole criteria, obviously - but it is a good indicator of health.
If the heart stops you die. This is regarded as an indicator of poor health.
Hope that helps.

 

[NickDReed]

It isn't the sole criteria, obviously - but it is a good indicator of health.
If the heart stops you die. This is regarded as an indicator of poor health.
Hope that helps.

Wouldn't death be an indication of no health?

You cannot have poor health if you are dead. Ergo one has to be alive to possess poor health.

The longer we live the more likely we are to suffer poor health due to chronic or terminal conditions for longer periods.

Leading us to my initial suggestion that while we as a species may live longer its possible this is done so with a significantly larger proportion of that life in what could be considered poor health.

No?

 

[paulrbarnard]

So it's sack cloth and ashes then? Poverty = near death?
You've missed the point entirely.
In a civilised world, the point of welfare and all the other public services which people get and are entitled to, is to enable them to live a normal life without all the secondary consequences of poverty. To look after themselves well and in turn to contribute to society when opportunities arrive.
Not sure why the right are so obsessed by entitlement, or its converse, and why it's the minimal entitlements of the less well off which worries them most.

Having somewhere to live and regular meals is not near death. You continue to throw out strawman arguments. It seems to be all you can do lately. It used to be fun sparing with you.

 

[Jacob]

Wouldn't death be an indication of no health?

You cannot have poor health if you are dead. Ergo one has to be alive to possess poor health.

The longer we live the more likely we are to suffer poor health due to chronic or terminal conditions for longer periods.

Leading us to my initial suggestion that while we as a species may live longer its possible this is done so with a significantly larger proportion of that life in what could be considered poor health.

No?

Yes in that we have more elderly people, but they are in turn healthier than elderly people from earlier periods.
Having people die younger clearly would mean avoiding any further ailments but wouldn't be a measure of the efficacy of the NHS.

 

[woodieallen]

I'd like to put this question to the floor. It is primarily aimed at Jacob (who I will remove from the Ignore list temporarily) and his fellow advocates.

How exactly do you propose to tax the ultra-rich ? Is it a percentage of their total wealth ? How do you even know who they are ?

Three simple questions.

 

[Ozi]

No, when Bevan set it up, he set it up to be free at the point of use.

Interestingly, he also specified that the NHS would NOT rely on general taxation for finance and that it would be financed wholly from the public fisc.

I don't have the exact quote but basically he said that the operation of the NHS was too important to be held to ransom by the vagaries of the tax take.

Sorry I was having a little fun Jacobing Jacob.

Make a statement loosely based on distorted facts (Liberal reforms pre WW1) then disappear without justifying it.

https://www.ukessays.com/essays/history/review-of-the-liberal-reforms-1906-to-1914-history-essay.php worth a read

This is cut from the above, a bit out of context on it's own.

The Liberals came to realise that reforms were needed to help look after the sick because they had recognised that if people were sick, it was through no fault of their own. Also, they wanted to improve the country’s national efficiency and have a good workforce and military. When Lloyd George drew up the People’s Budget in 1909, his aims were to tax the rich to finance the national insurance scheme that was in the pipeline. He justified his proposals by saying that it was a War Budget, for raising money to “wage implacable warfare against poverty and squalidness”. Groups such as the Friendly Societies, Trade Unions and Industrial Insurance Companies, as well as Doctors, opposed the plan for a contributory health insurance scheme, but Lloyd George offered the doctors more than the friendly societies to win them over. Furthermore, the administration of medical benefit was put in the hands of doctors.

A Liberal Prime Minister wanted to tax the rich and was opposed by Trade Unions ..... odd that.

Some time later a Conservative Prime Minister attached small landlords and we were defended by the wife of a Labor Prime Minister

Funny old world.

I recommend reading the article, it gives a hint at poverty levels pre WW1 not for a moment saying poverty is a thing of the past just that the proportion of people suffering has dropped. I think it has been true most of my life that things have been getting better for the majority, not so the last few years, we seem to have lost our way a bit and we need to realize that all should benefit when things are going well and that when there not you can't dump the problems disproportionately on people at the bottom of the pile without consequence. Take a look at where asylum seekers are placed, it's not in Tory heartlands. Our systems need to be fair we should all pay tax to the same rules for a start.