Give up your spare room for a grand?

adolf hamster said:
On a serious note i dont get how this is meant to work, unless the concept is simply to discharge patients but keep them closer to the hospital just in case?
Click to expand...

I believe it is for patients that don't need medical attention but rather need someone there in case while they recover. It would probably be similar to looking after an elderly person.
 
Stretch said:
I do struggle to understand why something which cost forever more money gets progressively ****** every year.

Can you imagine going in for an op, and then ending up in some strangers house, eating microwave meals and potentially no access to basic amenities, TV, Internet etc.

If I'd paid for the pleasure, I'd ask for my money back. Oh wait, we did.
Click to expand...

It's not so much that the quality of care is decreasing, it's that the number of people requiring treatment is forever on the increase. Not too mention that the very nature of medical science constantly progresses and treatments become ever more expensive. Then there's the fact that NHS staff just aren't paid enough. Even admin staff are leaving to go work at private GP's and the like. There's just so many factors to take into account.

No matter how much money the NHS get's, it will never be enough.
 
Avenged7Fold said:
Oh please LabR@t, you think disaster relief and vaccinating poor children from highly infectious and contagious diseases is not worth the money?

Hospitals cost loads, staffing them costs loads and at the moment, more and more staff are leaving the NHS to work private.

Sell your deep seated hate for poor and foreign countries elsewhere, this thread was too much of a stretch.
Click to expand...
Of course it is, but we just say for one year we dnt give the 12.5b and build hospitals.

This Is What The £100 Billion Could Buy At The Same Time… 56 Hospitals."
5.6 hospitals in 1 year
 
Avenged7Fold said:
Oh please LabR@t, you think disaster relief and vaccinating poor children from highly infectious and contagious diseases is not worth the money?

Hospitals cost loads, staffing them costs loads and at the moment, more and more staff are leaving the NHS to work private.

Sell your deep seated hate for poor and foreign countries elsewhere, this thread was too much of a stretch.
Click to expand...

Pakistan who we give the most in aid to {350 milion } spends 2 BILLION a year on its nuke weapon program.

India another one who we give over 150 million a year too has its own space program.....

I think they both can afford to vacinate there own poor children dont you..
 
They are as much my people as you are.

It isn't being a do gooder, it is being sensible. You want to not give any aid for a year and build 5.6 hospitals unstaffed?

You don't understand the costs and resources or the problem.

The NHS has been reducing the number of beds for decades: since 1987/8, the total number has more than halved from around 299,000 to 142,000.
Click to expand...

The issue is not money or they wouldn't be offering £50 a night for it.

Rincewindle said:
Pakistan who we give the most in aid to {350 milion } spends 2 BILLION a year on its nuke weapon program.

India another one who we give over 150 million a year too has its own space program.....

I think they both can afford to vacinate there own poor children dont you..
Click to expand...

All moot points explained by my previous point but i will add that you don't understand how budgets work and we have taken our fair share of money from the east over the centuries if you are looking to balance the books...

They can afford to spend more on aid but tehy wont if we stop anyway. Their nuclear program or space program does not come into the question ' should we send aid?'

It should be, do you want to help these people who receive the aid? We are not helping their government, we are helping the individuals because frankly, their government doesnt care about them. Why should we? Because people with bad governments still deserve to live, even if their leaders are ****.
 
Last edited:
Rincewindle said:
India another one who we give over 150 million a year too has its own space program.....

.
Click to expand...
Oh no a country trying to make more money. It's always a stupid argument. Its like going a country has a factory so why send them aid. If you didn't guess space programs make far more money than what the government ploughs into them.
 
Glaucus said:
Oh no a country trying to make more money. It's always a stupid argument. Its like going a country has a factory so why send them aid. If you didn't guess space programs make far more money than what the government ploughs into them.
Click to expand...

how much money does a nuclear weapons program make?
 
Glaucus said:
Oh no a country trying to make more money. It's always a stupid argument. Its like going a country has a factory so why send them aid. If you didn't guess space programs make far more money than what the government ploughs into them.
Click to expand...
They make money, oh why don't we invest in our own space program, fix our debt ??
 
dowie said:
how much money does a nuclear weapons program make?
Click to expand...
No idea I didnt respond to that one.but research is nearly always beneficial to the economy.
If they have an army or a jet plane should we also stop aid?
Also aid is really just aid, there's usualy political or wealth kick back.
 
dowie said:
how much money does a nuclear weapons program make?
Click to expand...

Dunno, might save them a fair bit of cash in other military investments if it prevents some conflicts.

Regardless, i don't think you can really point to one part of the budget and decide not to send aid because if we didn't send aid, they would still be spending that much on the program.

The aid we send cures/feeds/clothes people. If we did not send the aid, these countries wont be spending more on the aid themselves, they simply don't prioritise helping their people the same way. It sucks but i don't think that is an excuse to let children starve or die from disease.
 
We could not "renew" Trident and build 56 hospitals.

So the implication that Pakistan spend 2 Billion a year on Nuclear weapons program and shouldn't get any money works the same here, surely?

Why spend 100 Billion on nukes when the NHS is under strain?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom