6 ms·

>> decimate the health system and waste money on sending Refugees to Rwanda. It’s idiotic to prioritise that over the NHS. It all depends how you view the worl

>> decimate the health system and waste money on sending Refugees to Rwanda. It’s idiotic to prioritise that over the NHS. It all depends how you view the world. For many people, preserving the historical character and demographic of their country is an important issue. It might not be to you, you might consider it stupid, but it is a concern many people have. So much so, they would see illegal arrivals of non historical descent as a more acute problem. One to be prioritised over what can be argued to be improvements to the existing system. I myself am one of these people. It is more important to me immigrants be sent to Rwanda than offering additional funding or reforming the NHS. If my interaction with other people sharing your beliefs ( or more accurate my assumptions about your beliefs ), you believe me to be evil. I do not believe I am and I do not believe you, who think the opposite of me to be evil. I believe you are misguided though and wrong in what your priorities are.

SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
Wait, I’m seriously confused by this. If preserving the character of one’s country is an important issue, is the NHS not part of the character of the UK? My understanding is the NHS is one of the defining symbols of the UK, a showing of communal strength and compassion, the Western sensibility in the face of the devastation of war. It touches everyone who lives there, is born there, and often when they die there. It’s erosion is changing every single citizen by shaking their faith in the underlying values the institution represents. Isn’t that a way bigger change? Genuinely, why are refugees something to be prioritized over a cultural touchstone institution if the goal is preserving historical character?
- throwawayacc2 4y ago
  >> Genuinely, why are refugees something to be prioritized over a cultural touchstone institution if the goal is preserving historical character? I wish I could answer you unfortunately censorship measures currently in place prevent open discussion.
solar-ice 4y ago
Supporting the party which consistently underfunds a British institution, and sells off parts of it to their mates, in order to protect Britishness. Sums up Tory politics nicely, really.
- okeuro49 4y ago
  During the Covid time, the Labour party handed the Conservatives a blank check to do whatever they wanted with. Accordingly, the Conservatives gave lucrative contracts to all their friends. The current Labour party are useless holding them to account.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  Not a Brit, but curious. Looking at the total healthcare expenditure before covid, it consistently hovered around 10 per cent of the total British GDP. https://www.statista.com/statistics/317708/healthcare-expenditure-as-a-share-of-gdp-in-the-united-kingdom/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/317708/healthcare-expend... If this is underfunded for you, how many per cent would be funded enough? Accidentally, the EU average is about 10 per cent, with 12 member countries scoring less than 7.5 per cent of GDP. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Healthcare_expenditure_statistics#Healthcare_expenditure https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... From what I see, the British values seem absolutely normal to me, and healthcare results (life expectancy, 5-year survival of cancers) are just fine, especially given how fat British people have become.
  - Dagger2 4y ago
    "Funded enough" would mean things like GP appointments in days rather than weeks, and specialized diagnosis/treatment in weeks rather than years. What percentage of GDP would be needed for that? That question would require a lot of data and analysis to answer, far more than would be reasonable to expect for an HN comment.
    - inglor_cz 4y ago
      Is it possible that the problem isn't caused by lack of money, but by organizational issues?

SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago

Wait, I’m seriously confused by this. If preserving the character of one’s country is an important issue, is the NHS not part of the character of the UK? My understanding is the NHS is one of the defining symbols of the UK, a showing of communal strength and compassion, the Western sensibility in the face of the devastation of war. It touches everyone who lives there, is born there, and often when they die there. It’s erosion is changing every single citizen by shaking their faith in the underlying values the institution represents. Isn’t that a way bigger change? Genuinely, why are refugees something to be prioritized over a cultural touchstone institution if the goal is preserving historical character?

throwawayacc2 4y ago
>> Genuinely, why are refugees something to be prioritized over a cultural touchstone institution if the goal is preserving historical character? I wish I could answer you unfortunately censorship measures currently in place prevent open discussion.

solar-ice 4y ago

Supporting the party which consistently underfunds a British institution, and sells off parts of it to their mates, in order to protect Britishness. Sums up Tory politics nicely, really.

okeuro49 4y ago
During the Covid time, the Labour party handed the Conservatives a blank check to do whatever they wanted with. Accordingly, the Conservatives gave lucrative contracts to all their friends. The current Labour party are useless holding them to account.
inglor_cz 4y ago
Not a Brit, but curious. Looking at the total healthcare expenditure before covid, it consistently hovered around 10 per cent of the total British GDP. https://www.statista.com/statistics/317708/healthcare-expenditure-as-a-share-of-gdp-in-the-united-kingdom/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/317708/healthcare-expend... If this is underfunded for you, how many per cent would be funded enough? Accidentally, the EU average is about 10 per cent, with 12 member countries scoring less than 7.5 per cent of GDP. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Healthcare_expenditure_statistics#Healthcare_expenditure https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... From what I see, the British values seem absolutely normal to me, and healthcare results (life expectancy, 5-year survival of cancers) are just fine, especially given how fat British people have become.
- Dagger2 4y ago
  "Funded enough" would mean things like GP appointments in days rather than weeks, and specialized diagnosis/treatment in weeks rather than years. What percentage of GDP would be needed for that? That question would require a lot of data and analysis to answer, far more than would be reasonable to expect for an HN comment.
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    Is it possible that the problem isn't caused by lack of money, but by organizational issues?