CHARITY STARTS AT HOME

Uneducated_Rick said:
not 3rd, only 5th... behind US and Chinese defence and some massive worldwide organisations...

still ahead of Indian Railways and defence, Chinese Petrol and Chinese State Grid

I think the point that it is bloated and overstaffed (not front line) holds true
Click to expand...

That is an opinion, one which I would be happy to discuss. But the it is an impossibility to discuss the finer details with some of the more rabid contributors, they just want to justify their own views and ram them down your throat.
 
new2me said:
I can't help but notice that a particular 'member' liked JP's inaccurate post ... pretty much says it all really
Click to expand...
History got many angles, one should never forget the road that leads to the end result ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
norters said:
I hit send before I was ready. Silly me. What I meant to say was this:

According to you and your best mate Osbourne, this country is well on the way to recovery, the economy is growing and everything is fine and dandy. Seeing as this is the case, then why should we not help countries that have been hit with massive natural disasters? Surely you can not be that heartless. It has to be just bravado and a bluff? Surely? If not then I feel genuinely sorry for you. I know a lot of things scare you. I know you are petrified of people on the train that talk loud, I know you are mortified of dogs and we all know your biggest fear is people that are different than you but surely, SURELY, you cannot object to helping others?

That was what I meant to say. I do think you are a nasty boy though. Although you do like Greece so you can't be that bad.
Click to expand...

The thing is, we have a long way to go. We are a) still in debt b) still have infrastructure improvements that could be made here. Well on the way to recovery isn't fully recovered. Only when we are fully recovered should we afford the luxury of sending UK revenue outwith the UK.

We have woefully poor flood defenses in Somerset and other areas. Money should be spent there etc rather than overseas. Our ageing military equipment, more police, more nurses all IMHO more worthy causes than foreign aid. Again, we gave hundreds of millions to a country with a space programme but with very questionable sewage systems. How Indian spends its tax revenue is of little, actually, no concern to me, but giving them millions when they can afford to go to Mars seems a tad profligate.

Charity organisations exist for those who wish to donate and assist overseas. Those that wish to donate to fund these areas can, but I don't see why the taxman should made that decision for us. Tax raised in Britain should be spent in Britain. If people want to assist overseas places from the net income, that is entirely their choice. I don't object to charity from peoples own pocket. But I do from HMRC.

And yes, I love Greece (and have a couple of Greek friends). But financially just because their books are worse than ours doesn't suddenly make us rich, just less in debt. The rest of your satirical mockery, I will just file down to exuberance.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
I don't believe it... we agree on something!!



My son is training to be a paramedic. He has taken a part time job (to fit around college) with the A & E department of our local hospital. He was hoping to start before Christmas but due to the ridiculous amount of bureaucracy, he has only just been given approval to start this week.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Welcome to interia....thats the problem with the NHS, what it has become, it's core purpose is a good one, and given what we all pay in tax, should be an affordable one.
 
dejongj said:
I've never said the NHS doesn't provide good service once you can get it. My main point is that it isn't free. Everyone is paying huge sums for it.
Click to expand...

They are, but the point is, is it still cheaper to pay this than it is to cut taxes and tell everyone to go it alone with the savings from their income tax bill?

With a few adjustments it could be slicker, more efficient and an even better service.
 
The NHS is a much better system than the American system of private healthcare. Their system is of most benefit to insurance companies.

On another forum, an American member once told us about the itemised bill he got from a hospital stay. Absolutely everything was charged for. The little plastic cups that his medication was brought in were charged at $15 each.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
The NHS is a much better system than the American system of private healthcare. Their system is of most benefit to insurance companies.

On another forum, an American member once told us about the itemised bill he got from a hospital stay. Absolutely everything was charged for. The little plastic cups that his medication was brought in were charged at $15 each.


Steve.
Click to expand...
And they cost money here as well once you factor in all cost. I don't think there is much point in comparing the two like for like as I do t think they are comparable. But hey even if privatisation creates a huge profit at much less cost than it does today, then why is it so bad? Why isn't the NHS doing it themselves at a lower cost?

But what bugs me really, why is the demand so high? The machinery required to service so few people is disproportionate. Part of that demand being so high is also the perception of it being free, which it isn't. However that is just part of the full story, why is in a world class country like the UK the demand for the NHS so incredibly high? Is it a bad gene pool? I really don't know, just wondering.

We use the vet more in a year than we use the NHS. Where does all this demand come from that it justifies to be the fifth largest employer in the world?
 
dejongj said:
But hey even if privatisation creates a huge profit at much less cost than it does today, then why is it so bad?
Click to expand...


It depends who it is making a profit for.

The NHS shouldn't make a profit. It should be self sustaining.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:


It depends who it is making a profit for.

The NHS shouldn't make a profit. It should be self sustaining.


Steve.
Click to expand...
So even if the cost are less, you still are against it. And there ladies and gentlemen we have the exact reason the NHS doesn't change. There is no logic to it, people rather pay more. It is madness and exactly the same obstacles I came across doing health economics consultancy. You can show and demonstrate all the figure, in the end it is an irrational decision.
 
Steve Smith said:
The NHS is a much better system than the American system of private healthcare. Their system is of most benefit to insurance companies.

On another forum, an American member once told us about the itemised bill he got from a hospital stay. Absolutely everything was charged for. The little plastic cups that his medication was brought in were charged at $15 each.


Steve.
Click to expand...
Which is ludicrous as they will cost NOTHING like $15. Just like with most insurance related industries where the insurer the bills get massive as they know they insurer will pay it and its not a person per se that pays.

Its why car bodywork repairs cost so much, garages just charge what they can get away with, rather than a realistic price as they know the insurer picks up the tab.

In saying that, the present system of the NHS has no accountability and a different type of cost creeps in, one related to tiers and tiers of bureaucracy, interia and laziness and it can be just as toxic as its not run efficiently or effectively. A dose of private sector efficiency is what is needed.
 
More lies from the misinformed to the gullible
Click to expand...

Yawn.

So have you any real point to make? Third, 5th? Makes not much difference, the fact it is massively bloated, proper reform of it is needed, but can't happen because people are so welded to the idea that any change is privatizing it. The only lie here is that it's an efficient service and needs more and more money pumped into it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
ST4 said:
A dose of private sector efficiency is what is needed.
Click to expand...


Possibly. They need to be accountable to show that they are providing value for money without being run as a business where profits are given more importance than health care.


Steve.
 
dejongj said:
And they cost money here as well once you factor in all cost. I don't think there is much point in comparing the two like for like as I do t think they are comparable. But hey even if privatisation creates a huge profit at much less cost than it does today, then why is it so bad? Why isn't the NHS doing it themselves at a lower cost?
Click to expand...

Because they are not accountable to anyone, whilst it should be ran for the convenience of its customers (the tax payers) those in control run it for the convenience of themselves. Nurses burdened with paperwork, layers on layers of managers. Massive shift allowances for working anti social hours where private sector companies pay the same as its within the contract, or a small allowance. Unlimited overtime where private sector companies limit this on a need vs efficency basis. Coupled with the pay bands system where you move up bands regardless then get a % payrise on top and you can see clearly the issue.

dejongj said:
But what bugs me really, why is the demand so high? The machinery required to service so few people is disproportionate. Part of that demand being so high is also the perception of it being free, which it isn't. However that is just part of the full story, why is in a world class country like the UK the demand for the NHS so incredibly high? Is it a bad gene pool? I really don't know, just wondering.
Click to expand...

Fast food, fags and alochol. Common in Britain, major cause of health related issues. The gene pool is fine, but I did enjoy the comment. A nation of hypochondriacs that consume too much of all unhealthy things with sedentary lifestyles isn't good. The healthy ones live longer and prolonging lives on medication brings its own costs.

dejongj said:
We use the vet more in a year than we use the NHS. Where does all this demand come from that it justifies to be the fifth largest employer in the world?
Click to expand...

I believe public sector salaries and numbers really started to grow under the labour government in the late 90's, It was a way of creating people loyal to vote labour for life as they owed their job to them. Alienating these people loses votes. The country, after successive more prudent Tory governments was wealthier and the economy was better.

There is no need for the vast numbers of jobs in the NHS, but its own bureaucracy and tiered management have made it so. Its not so much the demand on it (supply and demand is an alien concept to the public sector) but rather the lavish employment terms and wasteful numbers of staffing within it.

Steve Smith said:
Possibly. They need to be accountable to show that they are providing value for money without being run as a business where profits are given more importance than health care.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Quite, perhaps where NHS managers are voted in by the public and performance related to the public in terms of tax hikes or reductions against the performance of the NHS against performance targets (quality and timeliness of health care) is accountable to that persons employment. Do a crap job, lose your job sort of mentality.
 
Last edited:
Demand isn't necessarily high.
For example a few years ago I fell over and broke my collarbone.
I was referred to the fracture clinic where the doctors opening remark was, "We'll get you in and operate on it as soon as we can".
My answer (because I am a coward!), "Hold on a minute...What happens if you don't operate?"
The barber of Southampton General Hospital said "Oh it'll get better on it's own".

So thats what happened.

A month later I went back again to see them at their request, and a different dr said, yep, all healing up nicely. If I'd had it operated on it would have been a 3 hour job, in hospital for a week after, and off work for at least 8 weeks.
I was back at work after 4. So, 3 hour op? God only knows what that would cost. A week in stalag SGH, how much was that going to be? 8 weeks off work, OK, costs my employers more than HMG, but SSP would have gone to work so thats another couple of £100 wasted.

Obviously I didn't need an operation, so why did they try and talk me into it? I am cynical, very cynical, so my opinion it's justifying their own existence. next obvious point is how many more unnecessary operations are happening?

On pay, I was married to a Staff Nurse, later Matron, and she was paid much more then I was. Even when reasonably newly qualified. Her weekends were paid for at an enhanced rate and her London Weighting was more than mine.
At the time the press had a habit of comparing a Nurses pay against a PC. But what they didn't mention was the nurses was with no allowances/weekend work enhanced rates added on a newly qualified Staff Nurse, ie direct out of training. The PC was the top rate of pay at that time after 14 years service with all allowances added. Some not really a valid comparison.
So money/treatment need is I'm afraid food for the gullible.....
 
ST4 said:
I wouldn't have sent it. We have charity organisations that assist out of peoples own pocket. If you call multiple billions slight then you are a much richer man than I. There are potholes that need fixed, ageing submarines that need replaced, borders that could do with more effective patrolling, NHS, schools etc that all could do with that money.

All IMHO, but the answer to your question is NO. I would not have sent aid.
Click to expand...
You don`t believe that the people and the situation they found themselves in, through no fault of their own did not deserve our compassion ,aid and help. Your really are a very selfish and bitter individual Steve.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=h...K6hFcarUfyPgNAF&ved=0CCsQsAQ&biw=1682&bih=960
 
fracster said:
Your really are a very selfish and bitter individual Steve.
Click to expand...

Is it not you're?

As it were, I ain't bothered about your view about me, honestly, I couldn't give a toss. And further more, you are free to address my points about charitible donations etc from individuals from their net income. However, the revenue HMRC get from UK tax payers shouldn't be spent abroad, IMHO.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:


Possibly. They need to be accountable to show that they are providing value for money without being run as a business where profits are given more importance than health care.


Steve.
Click to expand...
And that is purely under control by those who issue the contracts. Unfortunately that will be the same incompetent bunch doing it currently in house, hence it will be easy to point the finger at the private sector.

Take a look at say the national lottery. It's limited to 5%, civil servants wouldn't be able to run a viable organisation with such wide ranging and up to date infrastructure.
 
fracster said:
You don`t believe that the people and the situation they found themselves in, through no fault of their own did not deserve our compassion ,aid and help. Your really are a very selfish and bitter individual Steve.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=h...K6hFcarUfyPgNAF&ved=0CCsQsAQ&biw=1682&bih=960
Click to expand...
Ah the guilt card, well what can be said about that. Oh the shame, it's killing me. Sorry, but a daft response requires a daft response. There are more roads that lead to Rome. Providing financial support all the time is not necessarily the best nor the kindest solution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Bernie174 said:
Demand isn't necessarily high.
For example a few years ago I fell over and broke my collarbone.
I was referred to the fracture clinic where the doctors opening remark was, "We'll get you in and operate on it as soon as we can".
My answer (because I am a coward!), "Hold on a minute...What happens if you don't operate?"
The barber of Southampton General Hospital said "Oh it'll get better on it's own".

So thats what happened.

A month later I went back again to see them at their request, and a different dr said, yep, all healing up nicely. If I'd had it operated on it would have been a 3 hour job, in hospital for a week after, and off work for at least 8 weeks.
I was back at work after 4. So, 3 hour op? God only knows what that would cost. A week in stalag SGH, how much was that going to be? 8 weeks off work, OK, costs my employers more than HMG, but SSP would have gone to work so thats another couple of £100 wasted.

Obviously I didn't need an operation, so why did they try and talk me into it? I am cynical, very cynical, so my opinion it's justifying their own existence. next obvious point is how many more unnecessary operations are happening?
Click to expand...
I believe you have either option with collar bones. You can have it pinned together or let it run its course on its own. The latter you have the risk of misalignment (the oh has a nice lump where hers are a little out). The former I believe has a slightly quicker return to work time?

It's been a while since we discussed it but I beleive thats right. Pretty sure it's not a big conspiracy though :p
 
I've got a lump as well where I broke mine following a motorcycle accident.
 
dejongj said:
Ah the guilt card, well what can be said about that. Oh the shame, it's killing me. Sorry, but a daft response requires a daft response. There are more roads that lead to Rome. Providing financial support all the time is not necessarily the best nor the kindest solution.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely correct. Endlessly throwing money at poor countries has left them with no incentive to improve themselves.

Interesting article in The Spectator.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9121361/why-aid-fails/
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Exactly, and no different 'at home' than abroad. Yet when making those suggestions, filled with passion for sustainable change, you get branded as lacking compassion, selfish, you name it...Well I think it is the exact opposite, creating that dependency on the drug of being looked after knocks out any last grain of taking personal responsibility and making the change from within. And I think it is much kinder, and much more compassionate to wish that for our fellow men...
 
I believe you have either option with collar bones. You can have it pinned together or let it run its course on its own.
Click to expand...

My point is no option was offered, it was only me being a coward that brought that out.
But the point remains, how often does that happen and how many other operations are unnecessary? I don 't think we'll ever get the answer to that, but if it's happened to me, then it's a fair bet it happens with others. Given wage costs alone, a 3 hour operation (which is what it would have been) is not cheap, so you don't need a very high percentage of those to start to make dents in budgets.
 
Agreed. And then there is medication, unnecessary GP visits (btw what is it with retired people getting early morning appointments?) and so on. This whole perception that it is free (which it isn't) has created a very inefficient culture in my opinion.
 
Back to the overseas aid what people forget is that sometimes the government in countries like India may not have the will to do the right thing and what's wrong if a charity is willing to go in and help people at a local level?
For example Chester zoo as a charity go over to India and help resolve the conflicts between local villagers and elephants
The elephants wander into the villagers fields and eat their crops
Chester zoo go over there and educate the villagers and show them how to set up simple electric fences to keep the elephants off their crop

I can't answer the question about our government giving money directly as overseas aid and agree that it's not the best use of funds, but like a lot of these things it's probably over exaggerated by the likes of the daily Mail
 
LCPete said:
Back to the overseas aid what people forget is that sometimes the government in countries like India may not have the will to do the right thing and what's wrong if a charity is willing to go in and help people at a local level?
For example Chester zoo as a charity go over to India and help resolve the conflicts between local villagers and elephants
The elephants wander into the villagers fields and eat their crops
Chester zoo go over there and educate the villagers and show them how to set up simple electric fences to keep the elephants off their crop

I can't answer the question about our government giving money directly as overseas aid and agree that it's not the best use of funds, but like a lot of these things it's probably over exaggerated by the likes of the daily Mail
Click to expand...
I'm not against charitable work at all, if they want to do good work (and we support several charities) than they should do so. However state funded support of remotely managed projects at sums of money that are just eye watering I would not class in that category. That is big business.
 
Back to the overseas aid what people forget is that sometimes the government in countries like India may not have the will to do the right thing and what's wrong if a charity is willing to go in and help people at a local level?
Click to expand...

I see why charities do it, but all it does it make Governments think they don't have to do something, simply because someone else will, leaving them to spend money on huge armed forces/space programs/nuclear weapons.

By providing the alternative, the will never becomes an issue for Governments.
 
Aid has been going into many African countries for over 50 years. When will they start trying to stand on their own feet ?
 
arclight said:
Aid has been going into many African countries for over 50 years. When will they start trying to stand on their own feet ?
Click to expand...
When the weather improves - 50 years is not a long time in the grand scheme of things you know
 
arclight said:
Aid has been going into many African countries for over 50 years. When will they start trying to stand on their own feet ?
Click to expand...


When their corrupt governments stop spending the cash on guns and enforcement of their Ivory towers.
 
BRASH said:
When their corrupt governments stop spending the cash on guns and enforcement of their Ivory towers.
Click to expand...

That we sell them! See the deal that Gaddafi was signing before the coup....Also Tunisia, Egypt, Sudan, Somalia etc..We even sell to Iran FFS

Also the maligned aid package that has been given to India was (to a cynics eyes like mine) a bribe to India in the hope that they would buy a few £10's of billions of military jets from us. But they bought them from France instead..... so we are stopping giving them aid after the current agreed round of aid finishes.
 
We do sell commercial goods to Iran...but not arms....in fact the current list of commodities on the sanctions list is staggering.

It's currently very difficult to send anything to Iran...even humanitarian aid with all correct legalised documents and export licences gets sent route 1 by customs and delayed for weeks at a time.
 
Bernie174 said:
I see why charities do it, but all it does it make Governments think they don't have to do something, simply because someone else will, leaving them to spend money on huge armed forces/space programs/nuclear weapons.

By providing the alternative, the will never becomes an issue for Governments.
Click to expand...

BRASH said:
When their corrupt governments stop spending the cash on guns and enforcement of their Ivory towers.
Click to expand...

Yes you are both right but you can't think like that
I like to think that we are better than that
Helping people directly and bypassing their governments is the way to do it
 
In an ideal world Pete, yes, but it's not, and the reason charities have to step in as evidence of that. It's a bit of an endless circle.

I don't know what the answer is, perhaps, charities carry on as they are, but Government aid should perhaps be more conditional.
 
viv1969 said:
We do sell commercial goods to Iran...but not arms....in fact the current list of commodities on the sanctions list is staggering.

It's currently very difficult to send anything to Iran...even humanitarian aid with all correct legalised documents and export licences gets sent route 1 by customs and delayed for weeks at a time.
Click to expand...

We have recently been exporting crypto equipment to Iran - while not what the public would think of when it comes to arm, but certainly included by our government within Arms Export Controls.

Detail:-
Iran

103. The Committees recommend that the Government in its Response to this Report states whether it is satisfied that none of the 62 extant UK export licences to Iran:

  1. a) contravenes the Government’s stated policy that: “We will not issue licences where we judge there is a clear risk that the proposed export might provoke or prolong regional or internal conflicts, or which might be used to facilitate internal repression”; or
  2. b) is currently in contravention of any of the arms exports Criteria set out in the UK’s Consolidated Criteria and the EU Common Position
including those extant licences to Iran for: cryptographic software, equipment employing cryptography and software for the use of equipment employing cryptography. (Refer to Volume II, paragraphs 403–405.)
 
Rapscallion said:
We have recently been exporting crypto equipment to Iran - while not what the public would think of when it comes to arm, but certainly included by our government within Arms Export Controls.

Detail:-
Iran

103. The Committees recommend that the Government in its Response to this Report states whether it is satisfied that none of the 62 extant UK export licences to Iran:

  1. a) contravenes the Government’s stated policy that: “We will not issue licences where we judge there is a clear risk that the proposed export might provoke or prolong regional or internal conflicts, or which might be used to facilitate internal repression”; or
  2. b) is currently in contravention of any of the arms exports Criteria set out in the UK’s Consolidated Criteria and the EU Common Position
including those extant licences to Iran for: cryptographic software, equipment employing cryptography and software for the use of equipment employing cryptography. (Refer to Volume II, paragraphs 403–405.)
Click to expand...

Fair enough and yes I'm amazed you can get licences for that.
We're currently struggling to obtain licences for pharmaceutical refrigerators and lactated ringers solution.
 
viv1969 said:
Fair enough and yes I'm amazed you can get licences for that.
We're currently struggling to obtain licences for pharmaceutical refrigerators and lactated ringers solution.
Click to expand...

Amazing isn't it - I also find it amazing that Iran would want to buy crypto equipment from us....
 
Bernie174 said:
My point is no option was offered, it was only me being a coward that brought that out.
But the point remains, how often does that happen and how many other operations are unnecessary? I don 't think we'll ever get the answer to that, but if it's happened to me, then it's a fair bet it happens with others. Given wage costs alone, a 3 hour operation (which is what it would have been) is not cheap, so you don't need a very high percentage of those to start to make dents in budgets.
Click to expand...
Sorry didn't see your reply as you stripped off the quote info :)

Maybe it's just that most people prefer to get it pinned so it heals quicker, straighter and less painfully?

Again I doubt it's a huge conspiracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top