|
Is the leadership debates going to feature the worm? E: poo poo this is a terrible new page gimme a second to Google something
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
paul nuttall is a loving idiot
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Nationalise care homes. Standardise care. Pay carers fairly.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Looke posted:paul nuttall is a loving idiot You mean Paul Nuttalls of the UKIPs
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Namtab posted:Nationalise care homes. Standardise care. Pay carers fairly. Indeed. The care industry being in public ownership, considering their abysmal track, is something that should be talked about more.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Long term care is a loving shitshow and I see no benefit to finding ways to ship pensioners off to shithole carehomes so that rich cunts can take their houses. Not wanting to move because they'll lose their house is a very real barrier to old people getting proper care. Removing it should be at least one positive side effect of this policy. Obviously it's still a poor way of funding social care, but I think considering Labour has not promised any changes in this area it's fairer to compare it to the system we have now rather than the perfect system we can easily imagine.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
paul nuttalls ukip inc openly admits to wanting to privatise the NHS
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:If by a handful you mean one and the tycoon is called The State? Sounds good It'll ultimately go to private companies the state isn't going to build a portfolio comprising of the entire country. I bet by the time I'm old af I'll have paid about £2m in taxes. They're then saying anything I've managed to buy for myself should be taken away from my children if I die. Dunno how anyone can argue that it's good.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 20:34
|
|
Namtab posted:Nationalise care homes. Standardise care. Pay carers fairly. I agree with this post.
|
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Namtab posted:Nationalise care homes. Standardise care. Pay carers fairly. That actually seems like a good idea idk
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
Private Eye:
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Then "We think your granny should fund her own care so that the really rich don't have to"
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
im not sure nationalising care homes is the way to go if i am honest cap costs, standardise training, pay etc
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Namtab posted:Nationalise care homes. Standardise care. Pay carers fairly. Namtab for PM.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
I'm going to take a while guess and claim, without watching it, that the leader's debate is a total shitshow where no insight useful to any person is ever expressed in the whole two-hour period how'd i do
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Namtab for PM.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Namtab posted:Nationalise care homes. Standardise care. Pay carers fairly. 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
I kept waiting for it to move onto 'Homer! Stop reading that Tory manifesto!". Disappointed. LemonDrizzle posted:No, "your granny's estate should contribute to the cost of her care if she has accumulated significant wealth, while still leaving a decent sum of money for her inheritors." Agreed, also true of care for others. Universal cap of £100k for everyone, everything else taken by the state.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Time Skeletor has been on screen during the leader's debate: 30 seconds. Time May has been on screen during the leader's debate: 0 seconds.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
I've never seen Skeletor and May in the same room
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Looke posted:I've never seen Skeletor and May in the same room Good point. 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I like the health policies but we'd have all animes on the money and stamps. My boys love and girls love policies are pretty progressive
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Skeletor is way more lifelike than May, they can't be the same person
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
Actually you'll find that may is the most popular pm of all tim
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Time Skeletor has been on screen during the leader's debate: 30 seconds. I thought Jim Murphy had resigned
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Namtab posted:Nationalise care homes. Standardise care. Pay carers fairly. Boom. Also shocked to see that the only time Lemondrizzel argues from the left is when he's defending a horrendous Tory policy. Weird that.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
"From the left" "Everyone should pay for their own care."
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
Surely nationalising care homes will require a metric poo poo tonne of money to fund? Like health and social care is currently breaking as is money wise, that's with the majority of care homes privately ran.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
Looke posted:Surely nationalising care homes will require a metric poo poo tonne of money to fund? Like health and social care is currently breaking as is money wise, that's with the majority of care homes privately ran. Yes, you have to spend money to look after the sick, it does not turn a profit.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
I'm well aware of this fact, and never said a profit should be made... I'm just saying personally the nationalisation of care homes doesn't seem like the way forward Leave the running of these homes the private organisations, however you could (as i've already mentioned) - cap the cost of care (like rent controls) - create a proper, compulsory training framework for care assistants, in hospitals our NA's undertake NVQ's however I don't believe this is something that is compulsory for care homes - proper living wage for all grades of nursing staff - more emphasis on community based care, more specialised nurses/advanced practitioners in care home environments to help reduce hospital admissions (where possible) - on this points, give care homes frequent visit by a named CNOP - standardise the care plans for residents - allow the CQC to be stricter in inspections, increase fine amounts
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
The rate at which the tory twitter account shits out some crap about Corbyn tonight is completely staggering https://twitter.com/CCHQPress/with_replies
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
If people in a Commie thread like this dislike this change to inheritence, actual Tory voters must REALLY be hating it.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Looke posted:I'm well aware of this fact, and never said a profit should be made... I'm just saying personally the nationalisation of care homes doesn't seem like the way forward If care homes aren't run by the state then they are run by private companies, which by design expect to make a profit. Usually from public funds.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:1) People with lots of money won't have to do anything with their houses at all for the same reason they currently don't. End of life care cutting into the inheritance is only a concern for people without much to inherit. 1) End of life care will not cut into any inheritance under £100k? This would protect people without much to inherit. £100k isn't a small sum, most people would dream of that. 2) The state will pay for the care, and will recoup the cost when the elderly person and their partner dies and the estate is liquidized. Private healthcare already makes a killing out of providing care, this will do nothing to change that. It just repays more of the cost to the state that the state paid out to the company. I guess I'm just confused as to why the care of the asset-rich elderly should be paid for by workers who'll never be able to afford a home? Half the time in this thread it's baby-boomers-ate-my-baby, but now they're having to use some of their wealth it's bad?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
Looke posted:I'm well aware of this fact, and never said a profit should be made... I'm just saying personally the nationalisation of care homes doesn't seem like the way forward If you cap the cost of care and raise the minumum standard of care then what makes you think you will substantially improve the cost/quality ratio from now if carers are extremely underpaid and care quality is terrible? Your plan involves a lot of government subsidy and inspection, in which case, why not get rid of the middle man?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"From the left"
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Morton Salt Grrl posted:1) End of life care will not cut into any inheritance under £100k? This would protect people without much to inherit. £100k isn't a small sum, most people would dream of that. Workers who will never afford a home probably won't pay tax and now won't be able to inherit a home either and thus get to spend even more of their life renting. The "asset rich elderly" is anyone who owns a drat house at this point, even if its falling to bits and they paid half a bucket of lint for it when they bought it. If you own a house but can't afford care you're probably not going to leave your house to a rich person, you're going to leave it to your can't-afford-anything-because-house-prices-are-idiotic kids or grandkids and give them a chance to get out of the private renting market. The people who should be paying are the loving rich cunts, go after their fortunes before you go after the one bit of money most people in the country will ever see. LemonDrizzle posted:The measure in question only applies to people who literally have enough wealth to buy a brand new private submersible, and guarantees that their inheritors will also receive at least enough wealth to buy a private submersible, so if they found themselves in the position of the guy at the bottom of the ladder in that poster, they could solve their problems by hopping into their private sub and motoring away merrily under the waves. The measure in question applies to people who live in a loving house they own, you twat. It applies to anyone who doesn't fork over half their income to some rich oval office for the privilege of not dying of exposure. gently caress off with that poo poo. Who the gently caress looks at the concept of having dependable shelter and things "oo this is too loving bougie this got to knock this on the head better make sure everyone has to take the same measures as the loving duke of shittington does to pay for his healthcare that's only fair" OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 21:57 on May 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:The measure in question only applies to people who literally have enough wealth to buy a brand new private submersible, and guarantees that their inheritors will also receive at least enough wealth to buy a private submersible, No, they are people who own a home who would guarantee that their children will receive a home.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:The measure in question only applies to people who literally have enough wealth to buy a brand new private submersible, and guarantees that their inheritors will also receive at least enough wealth to buy a private submersible, so if they found themselves in the position of the guy at the bottom of the ladder in that poster, they could solve their problems by hopping into their private sub and motoring away merrily under the waves. Net worth does not equal liquid wealth. The person in question could have bought a home long ago when they were cheap, in Middle-of-Fuckingham, and barely be subsisting.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
wouldn't it be cheaper to pump the money into the current infrastructure, rather than having to buy out/build new buildings, facilities, staff etc? as with most things brought into public ownership, won't we eventually see centralisation of resources, and nursing homes turned into little more than large end of life farms?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 22:01
|
|