The NHS

[Chippy_boy]

I disagree.

I get the point about defence spending but just that and I believe NATO commitments mean you just have to spend the money somewhere but I feel the removal of Trident won’t got down well with our allies and will be a loss of confidence in us, in a time when we’re not exactly popular with our allies in Europe.

Trident is the ultimate deterrent (don’t like that word as it’s used so often but it’s true) and to use an example, no matter how much Russia prod at us and try and take the piss, what stops them doing anything serious is that they know that within minutes we could turn the entirety of Moscow into a radioactive wasteland.

I hope we never ever have to use it but I genuinely believe the fact we do have it, will mean less conventional conflicts in future, as it will put others off “trying it”.

I agree. There used to be an argument that we don't need Trident because the US would come to our rescue anyway. Well not only is that a politically unacceptable position - expecting the US to pay for the defence of everyone else - I am not sure it could be relied upon. Would the US really nuke Russia in order to protect the UK, when doing so could jeopardise the lives of pretty much the entire of the United States' 300m citizens? Absolutely they would not. We have no nuclear deterrent unless we have our own nuclear deterrent.

 

[Ban-jani]

I agree. There used to be an argument that we don't need Trident because the US would come to our rescue anyway. Well not only is that a politically unacceptable position - expecting the US to pay for the defence of everyone else - I am not sure it could be relied upon. Would the US really nuke Russia in order to protect the UK, when doing so could jeopardise the lives of pretty much the entire of the United States' 300m citizens? Absolutely they would not. We have no nuclear deterrent unless we have our own nuclear deterrent.

Yeah I agree with all of that.

I hate the fact the world needs these weapons but we unfortunately do.

 

[smudgedj]

Scrap Trident. It’s little more than a vanity project.

It wouldn’t save any money; the money for trident comes from the commitment to spending a percentage of GDP we agreed within the NATO treaty we signed. We would still need to spend that money on the military. Unless you’re happy to rip up the treaty.

 

[BobKowalski]

It wouldn’t save any money; the money for trident comes from the commitment to spending a percentage of GDP we agreed within the NATO treaty we signed. We would still need to spend that money on the military. Unless you’re happy to rip up the treaty.

As already stated I would divert the money into conventional forces. My objection to Trident is that it is next to useless. Also the fact that unlike the French we neither have the capacity or capability to develop our own nuclear deterrent thereby obliging us to hire it second hand from the US irritates me. Our official posture of sucking US cock and being grateful for it has always grated. This though is an entirely personal and emotional reaction.

 

[SilverFox2]

Data protection is the biggest hinderance in my opinion.

I attended a future technology exhibition at SRFT and I was really impressed with one idea. I spoke to the people behind it at length, with me being a technophobe I wondered how easy there idea would be for me to use. The majority of people only interact with one department, some though with co-morbidities such as myself interact with several. The idea they were working on was an app for your phone that held your medical records. It may not be practical at the moment but at some time in the future everyone will have a mobile phone/device and it would negate the need for a huge infrastructure for medical records. Now bear in mind I am a technophobe but as I understood it everyones records could be kept in one of these cloud things and the app could be used to keep your details updated and instantly transferable between departments. Blood results, test results, clinical outcomes would all be on the app. Nowadays we trust apps to do our banking so why not at some point trust them with our health records. They are doing a small trial as far as I know with people who have diabetes, they can upload daily results which alerts there doctors to any changes.

The app if it is developed and becomes available makes perfect sense for me, I visit numerous departments who at the moment use a paper trail to keep each other informed of where I am at. Of course there will be glitches in a paper trial and I have just had a glitch in my care, but because I am educated in how the system works I navigated it easily and the issue was quickly addressed. For people unsure of how the system works an app could well be a brilliant solution.

As for departments not working well together I get that, some departments do work very well due to close proximity of symptons.For instance, Dermatology and Rheumatology work very closely, Neurology stands apart. Generally I have had no issues that have affected me personally but again it is because I know the system and more importantly have a great relationship with my Prof despite him being a Liverpool fan

In what way is the nhs model different than other European countries?
Surely there is at least one working model the uk could copy.

 

[inbetween]

Our commitments to NATO are not dependent on Trident. The money from Trident would in part be better used to repair the damage done to our conventional forces through lack of proper funding which in turn would be far more useful in projecting ourselves on the world stage.

We are a nuclear power because we wanted to sit with the big boys and needed some conkers to do so which we rented off the US. During the Cold War and two superpowers facing off maybe you could make a case although it is arguable what difference a few extra subs made but today not so much. We would be much better served ditching Trident and concentrating our rescources into conventional forces.

The money saved from Trident on renewal prices and time of contract would be around £3-4bn a year.

For that saving you will also make perhaps tens of thousands redundant, destroy towns and lose years of high tech expertise forever.

Naturally had they been producing loss making steel instead of nuclear weapons we'd be all for keeping it.

 

[inbetween]

In what way is the nhs model different than other European countries?

Surely there is at least one working model the uk could copy.

Other models work better because they have mixed funding schemes that aren't completely reliant on the states ability to pay.

Switzerland and Holland both have some of the best healthcare systems in the world but both are virtually wholly funded by private insurance.

We can't copy any of these models because it would require reform away from total reliance on general taxation.

If the NHS isn't funded properly then the only current solution is to do better with that money or get more money, IE, put up taxes.

Or instead we can borrow more money to be paid back with interest at a later unspecified date which is the current Labour policy.

 

[SilverFox2]

Other models work better because they have mixed funding schemes that aren't completely reliant on the states ability to pay.

Switzerland and Holland both have some of the best healthcare systems in the world but both are virtually wholly funded by private insurance.

We can't copy any of these models because it would require reform away from total reliance on general taxation.

If the NHS isn't funded properly then the only current solution is to do better with that money or get more money, IE, put up taxes.

Or instead we can borrow more money to be paid back with interest at a later unspecified date which is the current Labour policy.

Thanks for reply but maybe it would be wise to get an integrated computer system first. At least then areas that are clear constraints on the system would be identified.

Is the system here in Spain not worth looking at?

 

[joe123]

The money saved from Trident on renewal prices and time of contract would be around £3-4bn a year.

For that saving you will also make perhaps tens of thousands redundant, destroy towns and lose years of high tech expertise forever.

Naturally had they been producing loss making steel instead of nuclear weapons we'd be all for keeping it.

Its true a lot of jobs are reliant on it, but if you consider Trident's replacement (£200bn+) these are very expensive jobs. I saw something that said you could pay create a £35k a year job for each of the the 10,000+ people in the industry for 500 years if that money was invested in say Barrow, differently. Slightly crude reduction of an argument, but there isn't really an economic argument for a nuclear deterrent.

It's a tough one, as there's almost no chance we'd ever use it, so it does feel a bit of a daft investment, but then i'm not really aware of any serious discussion about a feasible alternative.

 

[BobKowalski]

Other models work better because they have mixed funding schemes that aren't completely reliant on the states ability to pay.

Switzerland and Holland both have some of the best healthcare systems in the world but both are virtually wholly funded by private insurance.

We can't copy any of these models because it would require reform away from total reliance on general taxation.

If the NHS isn't funded properly then the only current solution is to do better with that money or get more money, IE, put up taxes.

Or instead we can borrow more money to be paid back with interest at a later unspecified date which is the current Labour policy.

Yeah but it’s complusory private insurance as a fixed percentage of your salary so not dissimilar to NI over here and the Govt tops up for those who can’t afford it and you also have deductibles and co-pay on treatment to fund. Also in Switzerland the health care providers are not allowed to make a profit so in that sense they are just an extension of the Govt.

I’m not knocking their systems as it works for them but I wouldn’t call it private insurance in the sense we probably understand the term.