Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

JamaisVu714 t1_is28ofp wrote

Isn’t this the much vaunted “free” healthcare system we keep hearing about?

−60

h0p3ofAMBE t1_is29q9e wrote

Yeah, this is what it looks like under a conservative government

59

JamaisVu714 t1_is2a6hb wrote

You talking about the crazy lady recently elected?

−4

h0p3ofAMBE t1_is2a8sc wrote

“Elected” my ass

33

Mist_Rising t1_is2axi5 wrote

She was elected in the same manner as any other prime minister.

−16

geraigerai t1_is2c3w4 wrote

What are you on about mate

She was elected by Tory party members, a group that makes up only 0.2% of the entire UK electorate, and she won with 81k votes to Sunak's 60k votes.

15

Mist_Rising t1_is2dbuw wrote

Each general election the voters of each district (650 total) vote for their Parliament members (MP) who then essentially determine the prime minister. The method selecting a prime minister in the UK is an internal affair (think American primary but more inclusive), which is then defacto decided by members of Parliament who with a simple majority can remove him/her (vote of no confidence).

This is how prime ministers have been selected since at a minimum, the 1900s but I do think even the 1800s as well, albiet with voter in parenthesis at times since districts were... Not equal.

−10

KizzieMage t1_is2gur1 wrote

Yes but in a general election the electorate are given the opportunity to vote on a parties policies and manifestos.

The issue here is that Liz's plan, her ideas and goals have not been voted on by the general populace, but by only 0.2% of our electorate.

I guess maybe the question is not how many voted to elect her prime minister, but how many voted to choose who would be elected by tory MP's.

Easy answer is the same as every other PM since this system started (the party voters), but for the second time in 6 years we're receiving a new PM as well as cabinet reshuffle through vote in no confidence shenanigans, essentially a new government who so far have only made tax cuts to the wealthy and borrowed 100's of billions to pay energy companies.

13

nrrp t1_is2xkzf wrote

> She was elected in the same manner as any other prime minister.

That's not true. Normal process in the UK is for the public to elect MPs and then those MPs elect a prime minister; what happened with Liz Truss was that the Conservative party members (~200,000 people total) and very specifically not the MPs elected the prime minister directly. Truss actually got minority of support of Conservative MPs in parliament (IIRC only a quarter of MPs actually supported her).

15

snapper1971 t1_is2bzd3 wrote

When it's being deliberately drained of funds, deliberately mishandled so that American health care providers and insurance providers can drain our country dry, yes. Before the Conservative Party was elected in 2010 it was excellent.

9

shamblingman t1_is2ghj2 wrote

How has it been deliberately drained of funds when funding has only increased every year?

11

Bananasonfire t1_is4qt8d wrote

Okay, think of it this way:

Say you're a widget maker. It costs you $500 to run all the machines you need to make 100 widgets. Next year, due to new widget requirements such as higher complexity or some other factor, the costs to make the same widgets has increased to $700. Your boss, instead of increasing your maintenance budget to $700 to cover the increased cost, only increases your budget to $550, which isn't enough to keep the machines running, and so you can only make, say... 75 widgets.

This happens year on year for over a decade, until the costs for running the machines are actually $2000, but your budget is only $1000, so you can only make 50 widgets. Yes, your budget has gone up every year, but not inline with costs, and as a result, you've actually received a 50% cut in your maintenance budget.

2

Mist_Rising t1_is2dm7z wrote

>When it's being deliberately drained of funds

NHS funding has steadily increased every for the past decade. And no it wasn't excellent under labour either, the issues just hasn't come out. It was actually going through a monetary crisis when labour loss power to Blair.

7

JamaisVu714 t1_is2c5mx wrote

American health providers are draining UK healthcare dry?

Do tell

6

indoninja t1_is2evr1 wrote

The worse NHS is, the more money to be made in private sector insurance.

I don’t think it’s accurate to say American healthcare providers are draining, UK, healthcare dry, but that isn’t exactly what he said.

2

shamblingman t1_is2gnr1 wrote

He said NHS has been deliberately drained of funds, but that's completely inaccurate. Funding has increased every year.

He's simply posting the same anti US copypasta.

13

indoninja t1_is2h4zz wrote

https://nhsfunding.info/nhs-crisis-making/

4

shamblingman t1_is2igol wrote

Why are you linking a site with a political agenda? Why not just look up the actual funding?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/632289/nhs-england-health-spending-in-real-terms/

As you can clearly see, funding has increased every year from $3 billion to $10 billion per year.

5

indoninja t1_is2jolg wrote

Because that doesn’t take into account, the cost of more complicated technologies, wages, etc

Ignores the reality of UK losing hospital beds.

Ignoring the reality of buy their own standards, they are incredibly under staffed.

But let me guess you’re gonna pretend the whole austerity with NHS movement had nothing to do with training funds.

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2020/nov/05/years-of-underfunding-leave-nhs-woefully-short-for-covid-second-wave

8