3 ms·

> Their apparent addiction to hiring full time diversity officers on six figure salaries is a neuralgic one, not so much because of the scale of the waste (smal

by DanBC 4y ago

> Their apparent addiction to hiring full time diversity officers on six figure salaries is a neuralgic one, not so much because of the scale of the waste (small) but because it's so obviously waste, so easy to fix and so obviously designed purge the NHS of anyone who isn't ideologically pliant, regardless of the political cost of provoking large numbers of taxpayers and voters. Here's a member of staff, a black man, who was attacked by a patient. He defended himself. The patient made a complaint, and the staff member was disciplined and dismissed. He took the case to employment tribunal, claiming that the original attack was racist, and that the complaint was racist, and that the following investigation did not account for that racism and so was itself racist. He won, because there was clear evidence that what he said was true. He got a 7 figure pay out. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/nov/23/former-nhs-trust-manager-unconscious-bias-awarded-1m-for-race-discrimination https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/nov/23/former-nhs-tru... You've said that fewer people die under a privatised healthcare system - the US has worse outcomes, lower life expectancy, because of its private health care. You're simply wrong. That guy could have got emergency health care - he could have walked into an MIU, or an ED, or he could have called 999. > The sad thing is, cases like that one are increasingly not a mere outlier. There's a million healthcare contacts per day. So far you've highlighted one where the patient got terrible care. It made national news because it's an outlier. Where are all the others? > The NHS is not regulation of health care. Most countries have heavily regulated but private healthcare You brought up de-regulation. Here's what you said: > If done properly privatisation and deregulation could just save it. There's no point continuing the discussion if you can't keep up with your own arguments.

origin_path 4y ago
Your first case doesn't have any relation to diversity officers, that's a matter for the courts. The outcome would have been the same regardless. The US has bad healthcare outcomes for a lot of reasons unrelated to their health care system, like obesity - a problem for the UK too. It's not due to basic, fixable stuff like "the hospital has no appointments" or "doctors aren't under any obligation to actually serve patients". "That guy could have got emergency health care - he could have walked into an MIU, or an ED, or he could have called 999." The 999 service that's also in collapse? He'd have been told to piss off and stop wasting NHS time because it wasn't an "emergency", as it'd already been mis-diagnosed as something trivial. He didn't realize how serious it was until it was already far too late. Why are you trying to defend this outcome? It's a terrible, atrocious end for a man who did nothing wrong, and no, this sort of thing is not an outlier. We can see it in the millions of mission cancer diagnoses. Your last points seem to be continuing the previous confusion. You can abolish the NHS and still have healthcare regulations, although the act of abolishing the NHS is itself an act of de-regulation. It means you have fewer of them, not none.

by DanBC 4y ago

origin_path 4y ago

Your first case doesn't have any relation to diversity officers, that's a matter for the courts. The outcome would have been the same regardless. The US has bad healthcare outcomes for a lot of reasons unrelated to their health care system, like obesity - a problem for the UK too. It's not due to basic, fixable stuff like "the hospital has no appointments" or "doctors aren't under any obligation to actually serve patients". "That guy could have got emergency health care - he could have walked into an MIU, or an ED, or he could have called 999." The 999 service that's also in collapse? He'd have been told to piss off and stop wasting NHS time because it wasn't an "emergency", as it'd already been mis-diagnosed as something trivial. He didn't realize how serious it was until it was already far too late. Why are you trying to defend this outcome? It's a terrible, atrocious end for a man who did nothing wrong, and no, this sort of thing is not an outlier. We can see it in the millions of mission cancer diagnoses. Your last points seem to be continuing the previous confusion. You can abolish the NHS and still have healthcare regulations, although the act of abolishing the NHS is itself an act of de-regulation. It means you have fewer of them, not none.