(Another) Teachers strike

[Bruce Wayne]

You're basing your view on the NHS on the unfortunate experiences of your girlfriend working for them mate rather than viewing it as a whole and the purpose it serves in our society. I dont doubt there are some areas that need tightening up but the alternative isn't worth considering.

Lackluster care provided by some companies in the US are prone to conditions preventing the policy holders from receiving necessary healthcare on the whim of their own appointed underwriters.

What about those not in work mate? Should they suffer without or be forced to suffer a lifetime of debt to enable essential care?

Judge a society by how it treats its weakest and much vulnerable. The US shows that your private companies just dont simply give a [Poor language removed] about them.

She's in the best ICU ward in the country mate. Think it's safe to say if things are bad there, they're bad everywhere. She was told last night that they had to be careful with wiping the patients arses because they didn't have any paper left. Ditto with surgical fluid and various other basic equipment.

Another example for you. All new starters have to complete a training book to show they know their stuff. That requires a senior staff member to mentor them and when they see they've done things right, that bit gets signed off. All of which is fair enough, yet if you go to work in another trust you have to do the whole thing over again. Even if you're doing the same job you have to do it again because every trust does things in different ways. Really efficient there mate.

Or you could have the fact that after just 12 months on the ward she's already one of the most senior nurses because turnover of staff is so high. This isn't a case of it needing a sticking plaster, or tightening it up.

I'm sorry but I cannot believe that there aren't people out there that could not make a bloody site better job of it than the shower in Whitehall. And y'know, just because the Americans are as rubbish at it as we are doesn't mean there is no one out there that can do it better.

http://www.aravind.org/ are one example for instance (in healthcare). http://www.khanacademy.org are another when it comes to education.

The whole rationale behind monopolies being bad for society is that they deprive us of innovation and new ways of doing things because there's no incentive for the monopoly to do so when they have the whole market regardless.

I quite agree that society should be judged by how it treats the poor, and the government is failing them, and always will fail them.

 

[Deloodid]

have we not agreed to close all the schools down yet and put the teachers on the dole?

 

[Allezfan]

I can't speak for Hitler but Thatcher was voted for by the majority of voters at the time. That government then has the legal power to force their views on us all, regardless of whether you voted for them or not.

That is the system. It's nothing to do with whether you approve of them or not. Just because you cast a vote gives you no right to dictate anything about my life. As long as I'm law abiding you have no right.

That's a principle you either agree with or not. You might argue that you have the right to protest about any decision the government makes, but lets be real here, that's nonsense. Pensioners protesting about council tax rises have been put in jail. Students protesting about tuition fee rises have been ignored. Pretty much the entire nation protesting about Iraq likewise.

It's a crap system, and the notion that it is in any way free and just is nonsense.

No, I agree that the system which put thatcher, and hitler, in power is the right one. But I don't believe that those choices were right. I agree that the government should have the power to decide what teachers get paid but I don't think their decision is right.

You can argue that a legitimate decision is also the wrong one, MPs and lobbyists do it all the time do it all the time. Labour doesn't think that David Cameroon has no right to make government decisions they just think he's making the wrong ones and hope to either gain the power to overturn them or make him change his mind.

I approve entirely of a system where the government decides how much taxes different people pay, I don't approve of the current set up and I would use what small power I have to convince people to put pressure on the government to change that but ultimately I think it's right that it's their choice. My method would be to convince them to change their mind not to change the set up entirely.

You say that I have no right to dictate anything about your life and that's true but if I disaprove of the current laws and think something you do which isn't illegal should be, I can try and lobby the government to change the laws or at least try and convince people to vote in someone who agrees with me. Obviously if I'm out voted, I'm outvoted but I'm still allowed to have a minority opinion.

There is no hypocrisy involved in believing simultaneously that the way we make decisions in this country is correct and that the right decision hasn't been made. It's the same way that I sometimes think Moyes had picked the wrong starting 11 but I don't want Kenwright to pick them instead.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

And nor should they receive a refund. When you pay taxes you aren't just paying to support those directly dependent on you, you're contributing to things which support society as a whole.

For the record, my parents aren't well off. The fees for the school i attended were around £4000 per year, and i only attended from year 7 onwards. The fact that my parents were relatively old when they had me and that i'm a single child probably helped too. It's a sad myth believed by many that private or alternative means of education are only viable if your parents are 'rich', as it were.

To be honest mate, if they are or not is none of my business. They could roll their fortune up and smoke it for all I care. I don't think any of us have the right to tell others how to spend their money, not least of all the government.

 

[Brennan]

To be honest mate, if they are or not is none of my business. They could roll their fortune up and smoke it for all I care. I don't think any of us have the right to tell others how to spend their money, not least of all the government.

Fair does mate. Just a bit irritating how people in general (not you) assume things about people based on their education.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

No, I agree that the system which put thatcher, and hitler, in power is the right one. But I don't believe that those choices were right. I agree that the government should have the power to decide what teachers get paid but I don't think their decision is right.

You can argue that a legitimate decision is also the wrong one, MPs and lobbyists do it all the time do it all the time. Labour doesn't think that David Cameroon has no right to make government decisions they just think he's making the wrong ones and hope to either gain the power to overturn them or make him change his mind.

I approve entirely of a system where the government decides how much taxes different people pay, I don't approve of the current set up and I would use what small power I have to convince people to put pressure on the government to change that but ultimately I think it's right that it's their choice. My method would be to convince them to change their mind not to change the set up entirely.

You say that I have no right to dictate anything about your life and that's true but if I disaprove of the current laws and think something you do which isn't illegal should be, I can try and lobby the government to change the laws or at least try and convince people to vote in someone who agrees with me. Obviously if I'm out voted, I'm outvoted but I'm still allowed to have a minority opinion.

Kinda struggling a bit here I have to say.

On the one hand you have a system where you are free to do what you please, so long as your actions don't harm someone else. A system whereby the government exists to ensure that this is upheld but no more. A system where you can exercise your choices whenever you wish.

On the other hand you have a system where 10 million people (roughly the number that vote for the winning party in each election) can determine large chunks of how the other 50 million have to live. A system whereby you don't have any freedom of choice, but merely the ability to apply pressure in the hope that something might change in a few years time.

I don't get it? You say you have small power right now. Isn't that the problem? You should have full power over your own life and your own possessions. They're yours. They aren't mine, or Chicos or David Camerons.

 

[chicoazul]

She's in the best ICU ward in the country mate. Think it's safe to say if things are bad there, they're bad everywhere. She was told last night that they had to be careful with wiping the patients arses because they didn't have any paper left. Ditto with surgical fluid and various other basic equipment.

Another example for you. All new starters have to complete a training book to show they know their stuff. That requires a senior staff member to mentor them and when they see they've done things right, that bit gets signed off. All of which is fair enough, yet if you go to work in another trust you have to do the whole thing over again. Even if you're doing the same job you have to do it again because every trust does things in different ways. Really efficient there mate.

Or you could have the fact that after just 12 months on the ward she's already one of the most senior nurses because turnover of staff is so high. This isn't a case of it needing a sticking plaster, or tightening it up.

I'm sorry but I cannot believe that there aren't people out there that could not make a bloody site better job of it than the shower in Whitehall. And y'know, just because the Americans are as rubbish at it as we are doesn't mean there is no one out there that can do it better.

http://www.aravind.org/ are one example for instance (in healthcare). http://www.khanacademy.org are another when it comes to education.

The whole rationale behind monopolies being bad for society is that they deprive us of innovation and new ways of doing things because there's no incentive for the monopoly to do so when they have the whole market regardless.

I quite agree that society should be judged by how it treats the poor, and the government is failing them, and always will fail them.

Aye, tragic and frustrating to read something like that mate and fair enough. You've got an insight on the ground floor better than most because of your missus.

But then there's huge benefits. My Grandad has got to get a triple by pass and he'll be lucky enough to be in one of the best cardiology hospitals in Europe in Broadgreen. Without cost. I think that's really impressive.

The stuff you mention there is due to poor systems and management. Both can be quickly repaired with the right senior management in place, but at least it's a localised problem and not necessarily a wider systematic problem.

I'm a huge advocate of socialised healthcare after living in about seven different countries over the course of time so I've been exposed to a couple of variations or even outright privatised healthcare.

But similar to you, your opinions and based on your experiences and acquired knowledge so I can't argue against you having them opinions as it's plausible that you would have them.

 

[chicoazul]

Fair does mate. Just a bit irritating how people in general (not you) assume things about people based on their education.

Agreed with you there Tarquin mate. You defo got bummed in private school though.

 

[Brennan]

Agreed with you there Tarquin mate. You defo got bummed in private school though.

Tally ho !

 

[Allezfan]

On the one hand you have a system where you are free to do what you please, so long as your actions don't harm someone else. A system whereby the government exists to ensure that this is upheld but no more. A system where you can exercise your choices whenever you wish.

The problem here is how you define harm.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Aye, tragic and frustrating to read something like that mate and fair enough. You've got an insight on the ground floor better than most because of your missus.

But then there's huge benefits. My Grandad has got to get a triple by pass and he'll be lucky enough to be in one of the best cardiology hospitals in Europe in Broadgreen. Without cost. I think that's really impressive.

The stuff you mention there is due to poor systems and management. Both can be quickly repaired with the right senior management in place, but at least it's a localised problem and not necessarily a wider systematic problem.

I'm a huge advocate of socialised healthcare after living in about seven different countries over the course of time so I've been exposed to a couple of variations or even outright privatised healthcare.

But similar to you, your opinions and based on your experiences and acquired knowledge so I can't argue against you having them opinions as it's plausible that you would have them.

That's just the thing mate, healthcare shouldn't be as expensive as it is. If you check out the Aravind story, they can do operations for a fraction of the price that US/UK hospitals, and the quality is at least as good. It's not because they've got some Doctor Nick types doing it for peanuts but because they have cut out all the inefficiencies.

If you look at most information based products they've gone rapidly down in price down the years, with many enjoying Moore's Law type improvements. Healthcare though gets ever more expensive.

The whole thing's messed up. We had the working time thing not long ago, yet doctors still do 70 hour weeks, and the standard for nurses is a 12-14 hour day. Would you want folks looking after your grandad that are exhausted?

The drugs are the same. Because of litigation companies now have to complete drug trials that last 5-6 years. Quite a few will fall by the wayside during that time, meaning that the ones that do make it to market have to earn ****loads before their patent expires and Indian companies knock out clones for 1/10th of the price. So we have drugs that are bloody expensive. Can there not be a better way?

I dunno. Maybe a better emphasis would be to keep people healthy rather than treat them when they get sick. If there were more people supplying the service you'd probably get that kind of variation as they all tried different things. Just can't see it in the NHS though as it's all so political. The Tories try something, in a few years time it'll be barely implemented when Labour'll probably get elected and tear it all up and try their own thing, and so the cycle will continue, with all the time and money wasted along the way.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

The problem here is how you define harm.

I'd say the law's already pretty good on all that isn't it? You can't physically harm someone now. You can't mentally harm them. And so on.

Generally speaking I've no problem with the law being upheld, and with a government playing the referee in that sense. Just as with referees though they shouldn't be kicking the ball.

 

[davek]

The rich should be shot. Just that really.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Even you had to enjoy Boris today Dave.

 

[davek]

Even you had to enjoy Boris today Dave.

I'm not aware of what you're talking about. If a satellite fell on his stupid ****ing face then yeah, I'd have enjoyed that.