Public sector strikes on Wednesday
- Thread starter makster
- Start date
technodup
Senior Retro Guru
Agree with this to a point, the pension deal isn't actually going to save much money- I read today it's a 0.4% cut overall. I'd have no problem with them saying it's an ideological move. To put the public sector in their place as it were.Scougar":146nwagd said:
It's easy to say "less red tape" and "small state" pre elections...
For those of you bemoaning the fact you can't afford to make contributions to a pension scheme, bloody good luck to you on affording private healthcare. The NHS is one of the greatest things this country can offer its people. An overall good level of medical care available to all and affordable to all. You have the option of going private should you wish, but safe in the knowledge the NHS is there to do what it can if you can't afford it.
As I already stated, I am a private sector worker. I'm an engineer, I design medical devices. I have recently been working on a delivery system for a drug used in the management of multiple sclerosis. The drug is the market share holder for the use with the condition. A drug that has a good proven track record in making peoples lives easier to live, a drug which in this country is available on the NHS. In the US where regrettably Obama's health reform was severally curtailed to the point of uselessness this drug will set you back up to $2000 per month.
What private health provider would want to supply this drug to an unemployed single mother when they could sell it for more to a middle class business woman? You may argue that provision can be made but just look into exactly how well that doesn't work in the US.
We are incredibly lucky to have the NHS, privatisation is a threat on the horizon that needs to be kept clear of vital services that help rich and poor alike. It isn't perfect but it is infinitely better than a commercially driven alternative.
As I already stated, I am a private sector worker. I'm an engineer, I design medical devices. I have recently been working on a delivery system for a drug used in the management of multiple sclerosis. The drug is the market share holder for the use with the condition. A drug that has a good proven track record in making peoples lives easier to live, a drug which in this country is available on the NHS. In the US where regrettably Obama's health reform was severally curtailed to the point of uselessness this drug will set you back up to $2000 per month.
What private health provider would want to supply this drug to an unemployed single mother when they could sell it for more to a middle class business woman? You may argue that provision can be made but just look into exactly how well that doesn't work in the US.
We are incredibly lucky to have the NHS, privatisation is a threat on the horizon that needs to be kept clear of vital services that help rich and poor alike. It isn't perfect but it is infinitely better than a commercially driven alternative.
Scougar":vt75yxvg said:
He thinks I'm a Thatcherite
(smileys are for you marky, see how it makes my point much more valid?)However, If he really looked at what each of us is saying... one of us says everyone has to make sacrifices to get the country back on an even keel and ensure that what little public money there is goes where it's needed most. The other is saying, don't care, I'm due my money and I want it no matter what is costs you, me or everyone else in the long run. Yeah, one of us sounds like Thatcher, and it ain't me!
JeRkY":390uvik5 said:
I'm not against privatising companies, I just believe that 'services' should be under public control. And one mega fact the never seems to bother people is that if you pick the wrong private sector package/company, they might not even help you... some companies agreesively look to getting out of paying out when you need it, because you didn't read the million and one bits of small print (I'm sure there are those people that will say 'fool you - I picked the right one/I'm alright Jack', until it happens them).
But we are digressing...
As mentioned, the official line is that it is nothing to do with the cuts, but you'd be foolish to really think it isn't. The gov is trying to make cuts wherever they can, with whatever accuse they can get away with. I appreciate savings need to be made but the gov is not morally guided. (Just take a look at what they are doing to care homes, under the guise of 'mobilty' and enabling people to stay at home longer. It saves the gov money, that is the ONLY reason they are doing it. It's disgusting that they will keep a dementia patient by themselves in their home to save money when they are at real risk of hurting themselves (for example).
The whole UK has gone down the moral pan I fear, with being an "individual" and not representing familes. People have become inherently selfish and all "me, me, me."
technodup
Senior Retro Guru
I'm quite happy to be called Thatcherite.
Love her or hate her she had more balls than the four we've had since put together.
IMO people let their heart rule their head when it comes to the NHS and other services. Emotive language and anecdotal scare stories doesn't further the case.
Love her or hate her she had more balls than the four we've had since put together.
As I understand it the NHS already does similar with some expensive drugs i.e. ration them or not supply them at all. And that is only going to get worse as treatments and drugs improve and increase in price. So we're back to paying more in tax or making cuts elsewhere or bringing in private money to maintain the same service.Scougar":eopq7249 said:
IMO people let their heart rule their head when it comes to the NHS and other services. Emotive language and anecdotal scare stories doesn't further the case.
Similar threads
