Dear US, Please invade Britain.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Blablahb:

keiskay:
maybe we should kill all the old people and any unemployed citizens. makes sense right? they are just a small minority costing tons of money. heck actually kill anyone who does not make several million dollars a year.

Unemployed people are cool. But old people, terrible! Everyone will agree we should exterminate those wrinkle rats!

Magichead:
Get lost Blab, you don't know a sodding thing about this subject

I know that not wanting to spend unlimited money on home care, is not the same as concentration camps.

Magichead:
and the only thing in this thread that sickens me is your attitude

Because calling all your political opponents nazis is a good thing, and very courteous and normal, right?

Magichead:
And before you respond to this, why don't you totter off and have a read about all the wonderful experiments this country has tried with private home care for the mentally ill, maybe then you'll grasp why this is an issue for us.

You mean the soaring costs of mental health care at home, which have risen sharply in the mid 90's, and have had the costs spiralling out of control ever since?

But sure, trying to fix a problem labour neglected for 15 years surely makes a political party the incarnation of satan himself.

After all, there is no grey pressure, no aging population, no pensions to pay. What about healthcare could possibly require modernising?

No, not "the soaring cost of home care", since I've yet to see any fucking evidence from you at all that there is a "soaring cost", just your usual mindless blathering. What I was referring to is the constant stream of news stories, now usually two or three a year, regarding private care homes that leave their charges locked away for weeks, or use physical violence and intimidation as a first recourse; stories of autistic teens having full-grown guys position a chair so the legs are digging into the kid's legs and then sitting on it; or the private elderly care homes that siphoned off so much of the money they were being paid to look after the people who lived there that they eventually went to the council and said "bail us out or we'll declare bankruptcy and throw these elderly folks out on the street".

THAT's the reality of "private sector efficiency" when applied to medical and psychological care; deprivation for the "clients", under-trained thugs for staff, and a board that laugh all the way to the bank with the taxpayer funds they've essentially stolen while we have to foot the fucking bill regardless, in the end costing us twice as much as if we'd just stuck with the system we know works.

Bad Jim:

Magichead:
: you're presenting a false dilemma, because we do not need to deprive one group in order to provide adequate care for another, we never have.

You really believe that don't you? Standard theory, the "tax and spend" model, says you must deprive the general population of a quantity of money in order to benefit specific groups. But no, in the Magichead theory, the resources for such benefits just materialise from nowhere and only fail to appear because politicians are evil. And the NHS isn't some massive organisation employing a million and a half people and still starving for cash in every department, they are a shoestring organisation that could treat everyone easily if only politicianss would let them.

You really have a penchant for spewing nonsense, don't you. First, outside of the world of loony Taxpayer Alliance thinking you inhabit, taxes are not some Great Satan, they are simply part of living in a civilised society. Second, as for the "Magichead theory", would you like to hear what it actually is? Well, hop off your Assumption Train for a moment, and we'll have a crack at it:

While a government hands over 80 billion pounds to the banks, when it raises VAT a tax which disproportionately affects the poor, when it ignores the recommendations of its own commissions into the banking crisis(and keeps holding more commissions until they get an answer they want to hear), when they hike up tuition fees partly to reduce the amount of money they have to spend on the education system, when a government wants to spend half the operating budget of the NHS on a slight upgrade to its nuclear arsenal, when they want to spend obscene amounts of money on ludicrous cock-ornaments for the military like the JSF, and while that government is composed of extraordinarily wealthy men who make laws and policy for the benefit of other extraordinarily wealthy men, then you are Damn. Fucking. Right. we can afford to give the disabled a life of dignity and opportunity without having to steal bread from the mouth of another needy group.

Lethos:

PiCroft:
Hahaha fuck me:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jul/17/creationist-groups-approval-free-schools

I can't find any other sources on this. Whilst it's something I can imagine happening because Gove is a twit, I trust the Guardian about as much as I trust the Torygraph =/

I think you might be being a bit unfair on the Graun. I don't accept their word at face value (which, really, is a wise position to take on any news source regardless) but I generally think they are more reliable as a source (moreso than Telegraph imo, but a universe better than anything by News International, the Mail or the Mirror).

Magichead:
No, not "the soaring cost of home care", since I've yet to see any fucking evidence from you at all that there is a "soaring cost"

Then allow a foreigner to educate you on your own country. Please note the date on the article:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/private-care-for-mentally-ill-shows-abrupt-rise-increase-revealed-as-fear-over-costs-grows-1508716.html

And the predictions were accurate. The spending on healthcare has more than doubled since 2000, making such cuts a necessity at the final years before the great pension crisis of the babyboom generation leaving the labour market.

cthulhuspawn82:
Are you talking about WW3? Finally, a chance to make the choice we should have the last time. Side with the axis powers, conquer all of nort/south America, profit.

Your avatar makes that statement all the more deliciously evil.

What makes you think our government would be any better? Have you seen the shit our politicians and news organizations are getting up to?

Hell, have you seen the last couple places we invaded? Trust me, you want someone else.

Hmm... Invade England.... Like that's worked PLENTY of times in the modern age!

F**k that, what we've got is bad enough. I don't want a full blown corporate police state run by dumbocrats and republitards.

I'd much rather the Scandinavian countries invaded, abolishing the main parties, imprisoning every single Blair clone (Clegg, Cameron, Miliband, etc) and installing a Pirate Party dictatorship. While they're at it, they should make me the Pirate King.

So, in order to save the social systems of the UK, you want to be invaded by the Western country with the worst social systems, a yawning gap between rich and poor and pathetic vertical mobility. What. At least get invaded by Denmark or Sweden or something.

MammothBlade:
I'd much rather the Scandinavian countries invaded, abolishing the main parties, imprisoning every single Blair clone (Clegg, Cameron, Miliband, etc) and installing a Pirate Party dictatorship. While they're at it, they should make me the Pirate King.

i can challenge you to a dual for that right ?
i have my slapping glove and everything...

Skeleon:
So, in order to save the social systems of the UK, you want to be invaded by the Western country with the worst social systems, a yawning gap between rich and poor and pathetic vertical mobility. What. At least get invaded by Denmark or Sweden or something.

was kinda hoping they'd come over, kill all the nazis, spend a shitload of cash, help with the birthrate and then bugger off home to make some decent war movies where English actors play the baddies...

plus they'd be nice and content and thus relatively inert for a few years on the whole "Ooorah" front...

but seriously i covered it a few pages back: more an attention grab/cry for help than anything else...

Bad Jim:

I have to say the "arbeit macht frei" thing is pretty ridiculous. Especially since the only people forced to work to make disabled care happen are of course the taxpayers. The disabled are not the only people who need government help - the list of worthwhile causes is practically endless. With that in mind, I think it is reasonable that the concept of efficiency should be applied. Note that they are still receiving care, just in a different building.

Also keep in mind that money isn't the only scarce resource, people capable of providing quality nursing care are also a scarce resource and time they spend driving hither and yon is time they spend not actively helping someone.

This makes sense - so long as no-one considers the effects of institutionalisation on people.

Firstly, institutionalisation of individuals denies them many aspects of independence to make their own decisions, which can degrade their standard of living. That's bad enough. Even worse, in the long term, it tends to increase their dependency on the institution and dissociation from society, which will be likely to impair their ability to function independently and in generally society ever again.

Institutionalisation also increases likelihood of abuse. Patient dependency on the institution and its carers gives the the latter more power to be abusive. It leads to potential 'industrialisation' of the care process, and resultant impersonalisation. Carers increasingly think of their patients as tasks or chores rather than people, and and are more likely to treat them accordingly. "Efficiency" will drive reduced carer-patient contact time so the carer can do more jobs, enhancing this.

Finally, institutionalisation is stigmatising. When you shut all/most of a certain type of person away and have removed them from day-to-day contact with society, wider society will increasingly be unable to understand or empathise with them and their situation.

It's not only that, but it's very dubious institutionalisation saves money anyway. A disabled person who lives independently with occasional carer support is - whilst alone - not anyone else's responsibility and effectively cost-free. Even better, it is likely there may be family and friends who assist them gratis. Once in an institution, however, they are the permanent responsibility of the institution, which means staff need to be permanently on hand as required.

Finally, "efficiency" might be generally understood by the layman to mean equal standards for less money. However, bluntly, "efficiency" is increasingly the euphemistic term for "spend less money at any cost", including reduced quality or standards. And I think that euphemistic use applies to what you're talking about here.

Skeleon:
So, in order to save the social systems of the UK, you want to be invaded by the Western country with the worst social systems, a yawning gap between rich and poor and pathetic vertical mobility. What. At least get invaded by Denmark or Sweden or something.

They can call it "Operation: Out of the Frying Pain, Into the Fire."

I'm not denying the UK has many problems. The Tories being in charge certainly hasn't done anything to help. But being taken over by America? That'll just make shit worse.

A disturbingly large amounts of Tories are scumbags, is this news to anyone? It shouldn't be.

Still prefer them to the Republicans though.

I love how people equate spending cuts with Nazism. The absurdity in such claims is just ludicrous.
Just to recap:
Nazi's killed "different" (disabled, other ethnicities, gays, etc.) people because they didn't belong to the Aryan race NOT to save money. Also, i fail to see how this measure comes even close to ANYTHING evil the nazi's did? Are old people forced into death camps? no they're just forced into care homes IF they can't subsidize their own costs in residential care.

And to be honest, with the current economic situation and aging population this might be necessary

generals3:
Nazi's killed "different" (disabled, other ethnicities, gays, etc.) people because they didn't belong to the Aryan race NOT to save money.

That's not quite true. While I agree that the comparison is over the top, money was very much a talking point that the Nazis used, especially in regards to inherited disabilities as part of their ideology of racial purity. Remember that they grew in power at a time where Germany was also economically massively in the dumps and the masses were looking for scapegoats.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked