NHS

News and information

For discussion of politics, and what's going on in the world today.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Re: NHS

#21  Postby Sendraks » Oct 02, 2017 2:16 pm

Tracer Tong wrote:
Yes, it is.


I see. So the principle of people not having to worry about payment when recieving care is somehow vague is it?
You're going to have to explain why you think it is vague.

Tracer Tong wrote:Nope.

The evidence suggests otherwise.

Tracer Tong wrote:OK: so when you said “The NHS isn’t sustainable in the long term, regardless of how much money gets thrown at it”, you meant that it is sustainable in long term, regardless of how much money gets thrown at it, on condition that money is spent on social care.

Now that that’s clear, I can just say that assessment simply isn’t correct.


You are aware that quote mining is a breach of the FUA right?

Here is the full quote.

The NHS isn't sustainable in the long term, regardless of how much money gets thrown at it, because the NHS isn't the best used of funds to deal with the demands of a growing elderly population. The money needs to go into the adult social care sector, to facilitate the provision of residential and domiciliary care services which can meet the needs of elderly people at a much lower cost than the NHS can. Until we have a Government willing to grasp that nettle (and presently, there isn't a single political party who looks willing to), the NHS problem's will persist.


You are aware that adult social care and the NHS are two completely different things yes?

The problem with the NHS is that it is being used to provide adult social care services, which are phenomenally expensive when provided in the acute setting. It simply isn't a problem that can be addressed by throwing money at it. It isn't sustainable. 10billion thrown at the NHS is a drop in the ocean that won't achieve much to salve the NHS's ills. 10billion thrown at social care will dramatically increase the capacity and capability of that sector, whilst reducing a cost burden on the NHS which far exceeds the £10billion price tag.

The NHS is sustainable, provided it isn't tasked with providing services that other sectors can provide at a lower cost. It really is that simple.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 13764
Age: 101
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: NHS

#22  Postby Tracer Tong » Oct 02, 2017 2:26 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Tracer Tong wrote:
Yes, it is.


I see. So the principle of people not having to worry about payment when recieving care is somehow vague is it?
You're going to have to explain why you think it is vague.


I didn’t comment on a principle of people not having to worry, but on the idea “free at the point of need” .

Sendraks wrote:
Tracer Tong wrote:Nope.

The evidence suggests otherwise.


No, it doesn’t.

Sendraks wrote:
Tracer Tong wrote:OK: so when you said “The NHS isn’t sustainable in the long term, regardless of how much money gets thrown at it”, you meant that it is sustainable in long term, regardless of how much money gets thrown at it, on condition that money is spent on social care.

Now that that’s clear, I can just say that assessment simply isn’t correct.


You are aware that quote mining is a breach of the FUA right?


You are aware I didn’t quote mine you, right?

Sendraks wrote:
You are aware that adult social care and the NHS are two completely different things yes?


Yeah.

Sendraks wrote:
The problem with the NHS is that it is being used to provide adult social care services, which are phenomenally expensive when provided in the acute setting. It simply isn't a problem that can be addressed by throwing money at it. It isn't sustainable. 10billion thrown at the NHS is a drop in the ocean that won't achieve much to salve the NHS's ills. 10billion thrown at social care will dramatically increase the capacity and capability of that sector, whilst reducing a cost burden on the NHS which far exceeds the £10billion price tag.

The NHS is sustainable, provided it isn't tasked with providing services that other sectors can provide at a lower cost. It really is that simple.


Yeah, you’ve clarified your position on this already. Likewise, I’ve made clear my position, namely that the NHS probably isn’t affordable in the long run.
User avatar
Tracer Tong
 
Posts: 1249
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: NHS

#23  Postby Sendraks » Oct 02, 2017 2:34 pm

Tracer Tong wrote:
I didn’t comment on a principle of people not having to worry, but on the idea “free at the point of need” .

Which is the principle of people not having to worry about paying for their care.
So again, you're going to have to explain otherwise.

Tracer Tong wrote:
You are aware I didn’t quote mine you, right?

Given that you plainly did, by extracting part of what I said and presenting it out of context, I'm not sure how you expect this to wash.

Tracer Tong wrote:Yeah, you’ve clarified your position on this already. Likewise, I’ve made clear my position, namely that the NHS probably isn’t affordable in the long run.


Well no. Restating your position, isn't clarifying your position. No one is any the wiser as to why you hold the position that you do.

I've clarified my position with a factual explanation of the current funding problem for the NHS and the solution for it. If you disagree with my explanation of the facts and why you draw a different conclusion, go ahead.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 13764
Age: 101
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: NHS

#24  Postby Tracer Tong » Oct 02, 2017 2:59 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Tracer Tong wrote:
I didn’t comment on a principle of people not having to worry, but on the idea “free at the point of need” .

Which is the principle of people not having to worry about paying for their care.
So again, you're going to have to explain otherwise.


Which is a different principle from people not having to worry about paying for their care (a matter of simple English, actually). So, again, I’m quite happy to explain why the idea of “free at the point of need” is vague, as I’ve suggested, but not why some other, what you take to be related, principle (“of people not having to worry about paying for their care”) is vague, which I’ve not suggested.

Sendraks wrote:
Tracer Tong wrote:
You are aware I didn’t quote mine you, right?

Given that you plainly did, by extracting part of what I said and presenting it out of context, I'm not sure how you expect this to wash.


Given I plainly didn’t, not extracting part of what you said and presenting it out of context, I’m not sure how you expect this to wash.

Sendraks wrote:
Tracer Tong wrote:Yeah, you’ve clarified your position on this already. Likewise, I’ve made clear my position, namely that the NHS probably isn’t affordable in the long run.


Well no. Restating your position, isn't clarifying your position. No one is any the wiser as to why you hold the position that you do.


Well, yes. I didn’t attempt to clarify my position in my prior post (by restating it or otherwise); I assumed it was clear enough already what my view was.

Beyond that, I don’t see any point delving into why I hold that position until we’ve resolved the issues above.
User avatar
Tracer Tong
 
Posts: 1249
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: NHS

#25  Postby Sendraks » Oct 02, 2017 3:11 pm

Tracer Tong wrote:So, again, I’m quite happy to explain why the idea of “free at the point of need” .

If you're happy to do it as you claim, why are we on fourth exchange about this with no explanation forthcoming?

Tracer Tong wrote:
Given I plainly didn’t

You did. I quoted you doing it and provided the full quote to demonstrate clearly how you'd taken what I'd said out of its context.

Tracer Tong wrote:Well, yes. I didn’t attempt to clarify my position in my prior post (by restating it or otherwise); I assumed it was clear enough already what my view was.

Beyond that, I don’t see any point delving into why I hold that position until we’ve resolved the issues above.


Well gee, as I see it, the only person here holding us back from a resolution on the issues above is you.

1. Your explanation on why free at the point of need is not yet forthcoming. You could have provided an explanation at the outset but, for some reason you're choosing not to.

2. The matter of quote mining. I'm not sure where you expect to take this with simple denials. If you want to persuade me to a different view, again you need to get with explaining yourself, as you've failed to do on the other points.

3. You've been asked to clarify your position and have provided the flimsiest of excuses for not doing so.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 13764
Age: 101
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: NHS

#26  Postby Tracer Tong » Oct 02, 2017 4:25 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Tracer Tong wrote:So, again, I’m quite happy to explain why the idea of “free at the point of need” .

If you're happy to do it as you claim, why are we on fourth exchange about this with no explanation forthcoming?


Because of your suggesting I defend a position I’ve not taken. Are you finished doing so, meaning I can actually get on with defending the position I have taken?

Sendraks wrote:
Tracer Tong wrote:
Given I plainly didn’t

You did. I quoted you doing it and provided the full quote to demonstrate clearly how you'd taken what I'd said out of its context.


I didn’t. You quoted me not doing it and provided the full quote to demonstrate clearly how I’d taken what you’d said out of its context, but failed in the attempt.

Sendraks wrote:
Tracer Tong wrote:Well, yes. I didn’t attempt to clarify my position in my prior post (by restating it or otherwise); I assumed it was clear enough already what my view was.

Beyond that, I don’t see any point delving into why I hold that position until we’ve resolved the issues above.


Well gee, as I see it, the only person here holding us back from a resolution on the issues above is you.

1. Your explanation on why free at the point of need is not yet forthcoming. You could have provided an explanation at the outset but, for some reason you're choosing not to.


Well, gee, as I see it it’s not yet forthcoming because of your attempt to get me to defend a position I’ve not adopted. Are you finished doing so?

Sendraks wrote:
2. The matter of quote mining. I'm not sure where you expect to take this with simple denials. If you want to persuade me to a different view, again you need to get with explaining yourself, as you've failed to do on the other points.


And I’m not sure where you expect to take this with simple accusations. If you want to persuade me to a different view, you need to get on with explaining yourself.

I’ve also not failed to do anything; I simply haven’t done something.

Sendraks wrote:
3. You've been asked to clarify your position and have provided the flimsiest of excuses for not doing so.


My position’s already clear; what you mean to say is that you want me to explain why I hold my position. I’ve explained why there’s currently no point in doing so; calling this a “flimsy excuse” is simply your hostile editorialising, as with your “failed to do...” above.

As soon as you confirm you’re done with your false accusations of quote mining and requesting I defend positions I’ve not adopted, we can proceed. If you aren’t prepared to confirm this, we can stop here.
User avatar
Tracer Tong
 
Posts: 1249
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: NHS

#27  Postby Sendraks » Oct 02, 2017 5:03 pm

Tracer Tong wrote:[Because of your suggesting I defend a position I’ve not taken. Are you finished doing so, meaning I can actually get on with defending the position I have taken?


I note that for the fifth time now you've decided to pontificate, rather than actually offer an explanation. The only person stopping this from happening is you.


Tracer Tong wrote:I didn’t. You quoted me not doing it and provided the full quote to demonstrate clearly how I’d taken what you’d said out of its context, but failed in the attempt.

Uh huh.
:coffee:

Tracer Tong wrote:Well, gee, as I see it it’s not yet forthcoming because of your attempt to get me to defend a position I’ve not adopted. Are you finished doing so?

The only person stopping you from providing an explanation is you. I can't stop you from coming up with weasely excuses to avoid getting to your point, I can only point out your ongoing failure.

Tracer Tong wrote:I’ve also not failed to do anything; I simply haven’t done something.

uh huh
:coffee:


Tracer Tong wrote:My position’s already clear; what you mean to say is that you want me to explain why I hold my position. I’ve explained why there’s currently no point in doing so; calling this a “flimsy excuse” is simply your hostile editorialising, as with your “failed to do...” above.

No, it is simply a flimsy excuse.
There are no reasons for your failure to provide an explanation beyond those which you choose to event. It looks to me that you are doing your utmost to avoid providing an explanation. Any "hostility" in my editorialising is an imagining you've manufactured yourself and decided to project onto to me, creating yet another flimsy excuse for discussing the subject matter.

Tracer Tong wrote:As soon as you confirm you’re done with your false accusations of quote mining and requesting I defend positions I’ve not adopted, we can proceed. If you aren’t prepared to confirm this, we can stop here.


My accusation of quote mining is not false. It is an accusation sincerely and honestly made. I have no intention of retracting it. The mods will ultimately determine if I am right or wrong. That we are in disagreement on this point is not a barrier to addressing the other substantive points in this discussion. If you want to choose to make it a barrier, that is very much a you problem.

At no point have I requested you defend a position you have no adopted. I've asked you to explain yourself as you why it is a "vague idea" and you are refusing to do so, creating fresh reasons to avoid providing an explanation with each new post.

Looking at your comment, you appear to have worked yourself neatly to yet another weak excuse for not continuing the discussion and providing any explanations. Although, I'm not surprised at this. If you had the capacity to offer a cogent explanation for any of your points, you would have done so by now.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 13764
Age: 101
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: NHS

#28  Postby Tracer Tong » Oct 02, 2017 6:00 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Tracer Tong wrote:[Because of your suggesting I defend a position I’ve not taken. Are you finished doing so, meaning I can actually get on with defending the position I have taken?


I note that for the fifth time now you've decided to pontificate, rather than actually offer an explanation. The only person stopping this from happening is you.


Or, rather, you, in dodging the question just posed to you. The only person stopping you from answering that question is you.

Sendraks wrote:
Tracer Tong wrote:I didn’t. You quoted me not doing it and provided the full quote to demonstrate clearly how I’d taken what you’d said out of its context, but failed in the attempt.

Uh huh.
:coffee:


Yup.

:thumbup:

Sendraks wrote:
Tracer Tong wrote:Well, gee, as I see it it’s not yet forthcoming because of your attempt to get me to defend a position I’ve not adopted. Are you finished doing so?

The only person stopping you from providing an explanation is you. I can't stop you from coming up with weasely excuses to avoid getting to your point, I can only point out your ongoing failure.


Or, rather, you, in dodging the question just posed to you. I can’t stop your dodging questions posed to you and your hostile editorialising, either; I can simply point out your ongoing failure in continuing to engage in both.

Sendraks wrote:
Tracer Tong wrote:I’ve also not failed to do anything; I simply haven’t done something.

uh huh
:coffee:


Yup.
:thumbup:

Sendraks wrote:
Tracer Tong wrote:My position’s already clear; what you mean to say is that you want me to explain why I hold my position. I’ve explained why there’s currently no point in doing so; calling this a “flimsy excuse” is simply your hostile editorialising, as with your “failed to do...” above.

No, it is simply a flimsy excuse.
There are no reasons for your failure to provide an explanation beyond those which you choose to event. It looks to me that you are doing your utmost to avoid providing an explanation. Any "hostility" in my editorialising is an imagining you've manufactured yourself and decided to project onto to me, creating yet another flimsy excuse for discussing the subject matter.


As I say, I’ve already explained why an explanation hasn’t been forthcoming; it’s regrettable that rather than straightforwardly acknowledge that reason, you continue with your editorialising (“failure to...” for simply having not done something, “excuse” for explanation) and indeed add to it (“imagining you’ve manufactured...project” for a basic factual description of your conduct that you simply disagree with), while also casting aspersions on my motives, rather than taking me to mean what I say. This is exceptionally crass, Sendraks.

Sendraks wrote:
Tracer Tong wrote:As soon as you confirm you’re done with your false accusations of quote mining and requesting I defend positions I’ve not adopted, we can proceed. If you aren’t prepared to confirm this, we can stop here.


My accusation of quote mining is not false. It is an accusation sincerely and honestly made. I have no intention of retracting it. The mods will ultimately determine if I am right or wrong. That we are in disagreement on this point is not a barrier to addressing the other substantive points in this discussion. If you want to choose to make it a barrier, that is very much a you problem.


Only it is false, regardless of the sincerity or honesty with which you make it, and your shameful unwillingness to retract it (not that I’ve required this); the facts determine whether you’re right or wrong (the latter, of course), not “the mods”. It is very much a barrier, I’m afraid; if you choose not to regard it as one, that is very much a ‘you’ problem also.

Sendraks wrote:
At no point have I requested you defend a position you have no adopted. I've asked you to explain yourself as you why it is a "vague idea" and you are refusing to do so, creating fresh reasons to avoid providing an explanation with each new post.


Only you have, when you decided I needed to defend a principle I hadn’t articulated; feel free to revisit your prior posts. I’ll be only too happy to defend the principle I have accused of being vague once you confirm that you’re finished requiring me to defend a position I’ve not taken. Whenever you’re ready!

Sendraks wrote:
Looking at your comment, you appear to have worked yourself neatly to yet another weak excuse for not continuing the discussion and providing any explanations. Although, I'm not surprised at this. If you had the capacity to offer a cogent explanation for any of your points, you would have done so by now.


Yet more crass rhetoric, as well as a dodgy argument from silence, aside, I’ve already explained what needs to happen for our dialogue to progress: I will be delighted to explain how the principle of “free at the point of access” is vague once you confirm that you aren’t requiring me to defend a claim of vagueness about another principle I’ve not made. I will be equally overjoyed to explain why I think the NHS, in the long run, is unaffordable once you confirm both the foregoing, and that you will be ceasing from your false accusations of quote-mining.

Ball’s in your court. If you find yourself unable to do these things, feel free not to respond further.
Last edited by Tracer Tong on Oct 02, 2017 6:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Tracer Tong
 
Posts: 1249
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: NHS

#29  Postby Scot Dutchy » Oct 02, 2017 6:02 pm

Children please...
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 38176
Age: 68
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: NHS

#30  Postby Sendraks » Oct 02, 2017 6:44 pm

Ball’s in your court. Either you want to explain your position or you do not. That you keep erecting ever more lengthy points to avoid providing a explanation at this point makes your willingness to do so functionally no different from your ability to do so.

For brevity.

I've revisited the posts on the vagueness of "free at the point of need" and at no point have you been tasked with defending a position you do not hold. I stated my understanding of the principle which underpins it, I did not task you with defending that, as you clearly articulated your view between "the principle" and how you felt "free at the point of need" was vague. I then asked you to provide an explanation of why it (free at the point of need) was vague. I'm only asking you to explain your original position, nothing more, nothing less.

On the matter of you quote mining me. I stand by my position. I acknowledge that you disagree and your apparent strength of feeling on the matter. However, I'm not going to change my position simply because you disagree.

You can continue to chose to avoid explaining your position and come up with endless excuses as to why you won't or you can crack on. Your call. I've no interest in dancing to your requirements just because you think I should. Either you discuss the issue of substance or you leave.

The only person who can explain your position is you. If you choose not to by constructing whatever reasons and excuses to avoid doing so, then that is entirely you. Balls entirely in your court.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 13764
Age: 101
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: NHS

#31  Postby Tracer Tong » Oct 02, 2017 7:28 pm

Sendraks wrote:Ball’s in your court. Either you want to explain your position or you do not. That you keep erecting ever more lengthy points to avoid providing a explanation at this point makes your willingness to do so functionally no different from your ability to do so.


If I hadn't wanted to explain it, I wouldn't have stated it. My reasons for not doing so haven't changed; the requirements to proceed remain as modest as ever.

Sendraks wrote:
I've revisited the posts on the vagueness of "free at the point of need" and at no point have you been tasked with defending a position you do not hold. I stated my understanding of the principle which underpins it, I did not task you with defending that, as you clearly articulated your view between "the principle" and how you felt "free at the point of need" was vague. I then asked you to provide an explanation of why it (free at the point of need) was vague. I'm only asking you to explain your original position, nothing more, nothing less.


But this simply isn't true, and obviously not true:

Tracer Tong wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
Tracer Tong wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
I see. So the principle of people not having to worry about payment when recieving care is somehow vague is it?
You're going to have to explain why you think it is vague.

I didn’t comment on a principle of people not having to worry, but on the idea “free at the point of need” .

Which is the principle of people not having to worry about paying for their care.
So again, you're going to have to explain otherwise.


Which is a different principle from people not having to worry about paying for their care (a matter of simple English, actually). So, again, I’m quite happy to explain why the idea of “free at the point of need” is vague, as I’ve suggested, but not why some other, what you take to be related, principle (“of people not having to worry about paying for their care”) is vague, which I’ve not suggested.


There you are, explicitly equating the two principles, and getting me to defend an assertion of vagueness about a principle I hadn't ever referred to. There I am, pointing it out; and here you are now, denying you ever did it. Good grief.

Sendraks wrote:
On the matter of you quote mining me. I stand by my position. I acknowledge that you disagree and your apparent strength of feeling on the matter. However, I'm not going to change my position simply because you disagree.


I haven't asked you to change your position.

Sendraks wrote:
You can continue to chose to avoid explaining your position and come up with endless excuses as to why you won't or you can crack on. Your call. I've no interest in dancing to your requirements just because you think I should. Either you discuss the issue of substance or you leave.


Standard corrective: there's been no avoidance (you mean declining), nor excuses (you mean reasons); it's sad you think this rhetoric is necessary. If you've no interest in meeting the exceptionally modest requirements for further dialogue I've referred to, feel free not to respond further. I agree: either you discuss the issue, or you leave.

Your choice, mate.
User avatar
Tracer Tong
 
Posts: 1249
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: NHS

#32  Postby Sendraks » Oct 02, 2017 7:54 pm

Tracer Tong wrote:If I hadn't wanted to explain it, I wouldn't have stated it. My reasons for not doing so haven't changed; the requirements to proceed remain as modest as ever.


There are no requirements other than those which you contrive. I have stated that I will not comply with them. I will not be party to your ongoing evasiveness.

Tracer Tong wrote:
There you are, explicitly equating the two principles, and getting me to defend an assertion of vagueness about a principle I hadn't ever referred to. There I am, pointing it out; and here you are now, denying you ever did it. Good grief.

I am denying nothing. I explained how the discussion went and my intent. At no point did I disagree with what you see out there. My request for explanation was purely about you explaining why you felt free at the point of need was vague. That's all it was. I have no interest in you explaining or defending the principle to which I referred. My only interest is in your explaining the vagueness of "free at the point of need" and that is all the interest I have ever had.

If you'd wanted to be productive, then I'd have happily accepted that I could have been clearer in my comments. However, you've decided to accuse of me requiring you to defend a position I have no interest in. Instead of taking me at my word, you continue with this farce of insisting I hold a position which I do not.

Tracer Tong wrote:I haven't asked you to change your position.

Yes you did. You said.

Tracer Tong wrote:As soon as you confirm you’re done with your false accusations of quote mining

If that isn't a statement of expectation that I should retract or reverse my position I don't know what is. I haven't made any more such statements and I don't plan to unless given cause to do so.

Tracer Tong wrote:Standard corrective: there's been no avoidance (you mean declining)nor excuses (you mean reasons),

Yes, it is sad you think this rhetoric is necessary. There is functionally no difference between these things.

Tracer Tong wrote:Your choice, mate.

The decision to explain your position is entirely yours. It is incredibly crass to suggest that this is anyone else's decision to make. You requirements are not modest, they are patently ridiculous.

I'm not leaving, I've no need or reason to do so. You are the one choosing not to move the discussion forwards. Instead you are persisting with derailing this thread.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 13764
Age: 101
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: NHS

#33  Postby Tracer Tong » Oct 02, 2017 8:22 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Tracer Tong wrote:If I hadn't wanted to explain it, I wouldn't have stated it. My reasons for not doing so haven't changed; the requirements to proceed remain as modest as ever.


There are no requirements other than those which you contrive. I have stated that I will not comply with them. I will not be party to your ongoing evasiveness.


Aside from the fact there's no evasiveness (as we've discussed), if you aren't intending to comply with them, you won't be getting an answer to your question. Your choice, of course.

Sendraks wrote:
Tracer Tong wrote:
There you are, explicitly equating the two principles, and getting me to defend an assertion of vagueness about a principle I hadn't ever referred to. There I am, pointing it out; and here you are now, denying you ever did it. Good grief.

I am denying nothing. I explained how the discussion went and my intent. At no point did I disagree with what you see out there. My request for explanation was purely about you explaining why you felt free at the point of need was vague. That's all it was. I have no interest in you explaining or defending the principle to which I referred. My only interest is in your explaining the vagueness of "free at the point of need" and that is all the interest I have ever had.


If you're "denying nothing", then you don't deny that you previously wanted me to defend a position I hadn't taken. That's just as well, since that's precisely what you wanted me to do, as the quoted exchange proves.


Sendraks wrote:
Tracer Tong wrote:I haven't asked you to change your position.

Yes you did. You said.

Tracer Tong wrote:As soon as you confirm you’re done with your false accusations of quote mining

If that isn't a statement of expectation that I should retract or reverse my position I don't know what is. I haven't made any more such statements and I don't plan to unless given cause to do so.


You're reading sloppily: requesting that you don't continue to make a false accusation isn't equivalent to requesting you retract that accusation, much less equivalent to demanding you change your position.

Sendraks wrote:
Tracer Tong wrote:Standard corrective: there's been no avoidance (you mean declining) nor excuses (you mean reasons),

Yes, it is sad you think this rhetoric is necessary. There is functionally no difference between these things.


It's remarkable that, in order to defend your rhetorical rewriting, you're reduced to claiming that there's "functionally no difference between" making excuses and providing reasons, or avoiding doing something and declining to do it. That's pretty crazy, when you think about it.


Sendraks wrote:
Tracer Tong wrote:Your choice, mate.

The decision to explain your position is entirely yours. It is incredibly crass to suggest that this is anyone else's decision to make. You requirements are not modest, they are patently ridiculous.

I'm not leaving, I've no need or reason to do so. You are the one choosing not to move the discussion forwards. Instead you are persisting with derailing this thread.


Much as the decision to not meet modest requirements to move our dialogue forward is yours; there's nothing objectionable about them, much less "patently ridiculous" (again with the exaggerated rhetoric!). Until you do so, there's no progress to be made; the derail is all yours. I'll remind you that you're free to stop responding whenever you like...
Last edited by Tracer Tong on Oct 02, 2017 8:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Tracer Tong
 
Posts: 1249
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: NHS

#34  Postby Sendraks » Oct 02, 2017 8:26 pm

I have asked you repeatedly to explain your position to move the discussion forwards. You are refusing to do so and persisting in derailing the thread.

You are not asking me anything about the topic of the thread. Therefore your posts purely amount to a derail.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 13764
Age: 101
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: NHS

#35  Postby Tracer Tong » Oct 02, 2017 8:30 pm

Sendraks wrote:I have asked you repeatedly to explain your position to move the discussion forwards. You are refusing to do so and persisting in derailing the thread.

You are not asking me anything about the topic of the thread. Therefore your posts purely amount to a derail.


And I've declined repeatedly to answer (you), and will continue to do so until you meet the modest requirement I've mentioned to move the discussion forwards. You are refusing to do so and, indeed, persisting in derailing this thread.

If derailing the thread is your concern, then I suggest you stop responding to me.
User avatar
Tracer Tong
 
Posts: 1249
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: NHS

#36  Postby Sendraks » Oct 02, 2017 8:37 pm

Will you please keep the thread on topic and discuss your position or something else to do with the NHS. I can only ask you to do this so many times.

I will not respond to your requirements. Doing so would be to derail the discussion further.

Tracer Tong wrote:If derailing the thread is your concern, then I suggest you stop responding to me.


Your choice to derail the thread because I respond to you. Nothing to do with me. I'm not making you do this. :grin:
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 13764
Age: 101
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: NHS

#37  Postby Tracer Tong » Oct 02, 2017 8:45 pm

Sendraks wrote:Will you please keep the thread on topic and discuss your position or something else to do with the NHS. I can only ask you to do this so many times.


I've tried to, but you're persisting in derailing it. I look forward to your returning to on-topic discussion.

Sendraks wrote:I will not respond to your requirements. Doing so would be to derail the discussion further.


Cool: so since you decline to meet those (perfectly reasonable) requirements, you won't be getting an answer to your questions, and therefore you needn't derail the thread further with future requests that you know won't be granted.

Sendraks wrote:Your choice to derail the thread because I respond to you. Nothing to do with me. I'm not making you do this.


Much as I'm not making you respond, responses which derail the thread, derailment about which you've expressed concern.

:coffee:
User avatar
Tracer Tong
 
Posts: 1249
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: NHS

#38  Postby Sendraks » Oct 02, 2017 9:07 pm

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/verdict/how-serious-are-pressures-social-care

Further to my earlier comments on the sustainability of the NHS, the Kings Fund and the House of Lords Select Committee on NHS sustainability have both presented similar commentary about the importance of funding adult social care in order to sustain the NHS. Like myself, they recognise that simply throwing money at the NHS won't work, changes are needed as to how services are delivered both within and outwith the service. Although, it is worth noting that the UK has historically spent less on health care than other OECD nations (something which the Labour Government did make steps towards correcting) but, funding alone isn't enough.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/verdict/how-serious-are-pressures-social-care

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldnhssus/151/151.pdf

These reports also reflect the commentary of the NAO on the sustainability of the NHS, where changes to services are not made.

If there's evidence to suggest that the NHS, as a provider of publicly funded healthcare delivering care free at the point of need), is not sustainable, that case has yet to be made.

As to why the principle of the NHS being "free at the point of need," is somehow vague, this remains something of a perplexing mystery to me. After all, there is plenty of freely available documentation setting out the principles of the NHS.

http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/about/Pages/nhscoreprinciples.aspx

Where the vagueness is, I'm just not seeing it.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 13764
Age: 101
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: NHS

#39  Postby Tracer Tong » Oct 02, 2017 9:13 pm

Sendraks wrote:https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/verdict/how-serious-are-pressures-social-care

Further to my earlier comments on the sustainability of the NHS, the Kings Fund and the House of Lords Select Committee on NHS sustainability have both presented similar commentary about the importance of funding adult social care in order to sustain the NHS. Like myself, they recognise that simply throwing money at the NHS won't work, changes are needed as to how services are delivered both within and outwith the service. Although, it is worth noting that the UK has historically spent less on health care than other OECD nations (something which the Labour Government did make steps towards correcting) but, funding alone isn't enough.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/verdict/how-serious-are-pressures-social-care

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldnhssus/151/151.pdf

These reports also reflect the commentary of the NAO on the sustainability of the NHS, where changes to services are not made.


I'd say most of this is fair, though, as I've already indicated, this seems to me to amount to not much more than a stay of execution.

Sendraks wrote:
If there's evidence to suggest that the NHS, as a provider of publicly funded healthcare delivering care free at the point of need), is not sustainable, that case has yet to be made.

As to why the principle of the NHS being "free at the point of need," is somehow vague, this remains something of a perplexing mystery to me. After all, there is plenty of freely available documentation setting out the principles of the NHS.

http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/about/Pages/nhscoreprinciples.aspx

Where the vagueness is, I'm just not seeing it.


Well, I'd be delighted to explain my view on the matter; but see our previous discussion.
User avatar
Tracer Tong
 
Posts: 1249
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: NHS

#40  Postby Sendraks » Oct 02, 2017 9:30 pm

Tracer Tong wrote:
I'd say most of this is fair, though, as I've already indicated, this seems to me to amount to not much more than a stay of execution.


I'm not seeing any information to suggest that the NHS is ultimately not sustainable. The NHS needs to change, although Government funding priorities to focus on adult social care is the more pressing concerning for NHS sustainability.

It'd be nice if you could cite a report or some other evidence in support of the view about the ultimate un-sustainability of the NHS.

Tracer Tong wrote:Well, I'd be delighted to explain my view on the matter; but see our previous discussion.


I'm rather more interested in to why what I've cited on NHS choices could be construed as vague, given that is a relatively fixed point of reference, rather than more subjective notions.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 13764
Age: 101
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to News, Politics & Current Affairs

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest