How To Save The NHS At A Stroke.

[sgtkate]

What a sorry shower you lot are, we need modern infrastructure whether you like it or not. Why should all our taxes go in to health care, we need to fix the problems rather than throw money at it.

 

Who on this thread is saying to simply throw money at it? HS2 seems to be incredibly ill-advised, apart from the government I don't think anyone is in favour of it in it's current form, including all experts. If we can achieve nearly the same thing for less money then surely that's a good thing. Angel's original post was just to get the discussion started really around how stupid HS2 is at the moment. Flexo has already posted an alternative to HS2 that looks viable but I'm not a railway engineer so having to take their website at face value.

[tinfoilhat]

 

I think HighSpeedUK won't happen, HS2 won't happen and the NHS won't get it's £20bn (£350m/week).

 

Quoted for truth.

[biotechpete]

HighSpeedUK is a much better plan that HS2. It achieves a new north-south route, modernises the whole of the rest of the railway and is £20bn cheaper!

 

£20bn is the same amount of money that the Leave campaigned promised to spend on the NHS in their leaflets and on their big red bus.

 

So, yes, scrap HS2 and do HighSpeedUK and £20bn to NHS instead.

 

That HighSpeedUK plan looks a bit sketchy to me. There are several poor assumptions in the bits of network that I know of. I'm pretty sure the 1957 Woodhead tunnel has been looked at and ruled out several times. HS2 into central Manchester is using tunnelling in South Manchester because that line is already over capacity, especially with the viaduct at Stockport having a speed limit. The suggested tuneling under central Manchester is likely to be very problematic with existing tunnels, waterways etc too.

[SmartiePants]

 

£20bn is the same amount of money that the Leave campaigned promised to spend on the NHS in their leaflets and on their big red bus.

 

So, yes, scrap HS2 and do HighSpeedUK and £20bn to NHS instead.

 

I must have missed that. Where did it say 20bn was going to be spent on the NHS?

[*_ash_*]

I have a cunning plan to save our NHS.

 

Which is the most important to the well being of the Country.

 

1) The NHS

2) Saving 20 mins on getting to London by HS2 Train.

 

I would go for the NHS every time if asked.

 

 

This question is highly loaded. Given the choice of the two, then almost everyone in the country would say the NHS. It's almost as loaded as the council questionnaire I had a few years ago about parking permits.

 

The most important thing for the well being of the country is the economy. If that failed there'd be no NHS, and certainly no need for a new railway line.

[biotechpete]

I must have missed that. Where did it say 20bn was going to be spent on the NHS?

 

I seem to have a vague memory of some idiot standing in front of a campaign bus. It had some writing on the side, but I think it was just a lie.

[ECCOnoob]

I have a cunning plan to save our NHS.

 

Which is the most important to the well being of the Country.

 

1) The NHS

2) Saving 20 mins on getting to London by HS2 Train.

 

I would go for the NHS every time if asked.

 

My cunning plan, abandon the white elephant that is the HS2 at a cost of 55 billion. (By 2026 it will be at least 75/85 billions to complete it.)

 

Put half the money 30/40 billion into the NHS, saving it at the stroke of the pen.

 

The other half into upgrading our existing Railways, re nationalising them first, then running them as a service, not as a money making venture for a few billionaires.

 

Angel1.

 

You do realise that the NHS budget gets more than double the entire estimated costs of high speed 2 each and every year.

 

If you want to break that down. Based on current figures of a £120billion NHS annual budget, that would mean that by the time HS2 is built the NHS would have piddled away £1,560,000,000,000.

 

HS2 is not even pocket change.

 

HS2 or its equivilent is an investment in future infrastructure. An investment that is desprately needed. Its not as simple as these moronic statements as "getting to London quicker". That is just one part of it. Its about dragging our railways out of the 70s (or in some cases even 60s) doldrums and creating a tiny fraction of the sort of system that other countries have had for decades.

 

Inverstment has to start start somewhere and taxpayer monies cannot always be diverted to what the ill informed masses think.

 

The "public" are dumb. The "public" never understand nor care about the bigger picture. There is more to this country than just the NHS.

 

Its a bottomless money pit and year on year screams its not getting enough. There are other things that money needs to pay for. We cannot let every other piece of infrastructure and investment die just to feed it.

 

Im sorry but your "cunning plan" is the sort of child like and ill thought out simplistic response that a student debating society would have or Jeremy Corbyn would come out with.

[born48]

What we need to do and its never mentioned on tv and such is to do away with the thousands of superfluous managers all on hundreds of thousands per year.

[Anna B]

You do realise that the NHS budget gets more than double the entire estimated costs of high speed 2 each and every year.

 

If you want to break that down. Based on current figures of a £120billion NHS annual budget, that would mean that by the time HS2 is built the NHS would have piddled away £1,560,000,000,000. That's over 27,800 times the total cost of HS2.

 

HS2 is not even pocket change.

 

HS2 or its equivilent is an investment in future infrastructure. An investment that is desprately needed. Its not as simple as these moronic statements as "getting to London quicker". That is just one part of it. Its about dragging our railways out of the 70s (or in some cases even 60s) doldrums and creating a tiny fraction of the sort of system that other countries have had for decades.

 

Inverstment has to start start somewhere and taxpayer monies cannot always be diverted to what the ill informed masses think.

 

The "public" are dumb. The "public" never understand nor care about the bigger picture. There is more to this country than just the NHS.

Its a bottomless money pit and year on year screams its not getting enough. There are other things that money needs to pay for. We cannot let every other piece of infrastructure and investment die just to feed it.

 

Im sorry but your "cunning plan" is the sort of child like and ill thought out simplistic response that a student debating society would have or Jeremy Corbyn would come out with.

 

Charming. Thanks very much.

That just about sums up your attitude to anyone who doesn't agree with you. Unfortunately it also sums up your fellow Conservative's attitude as well. Does your arrogance ever allow the merest hint of light? Of seeing things from a different perspective? That you could possibly ever be.. (perish the thought,) a little bit er... wrong?

[ECCOnoob]

Anna, you need to stop taking things so personal.

 

I talk of the masses.

 

If you ask the average man on the street whether we should fund the nhs or a brand new railway to london OF COURSE they are going to say the NHS.

 

No lay person is going to even begin to understand the complexities nor the sheer amount of things that a government has to fund. Sometimes there are boring and unglamourous things that on a headline appear wasteful and unnecessary to an average joe.

 

That is why I say that "public" i.e. the masses i.e. the man on the street are dumb. They are and I include myself in that. Its just a well know turn of phrase to set out my point.

 

Its that reason why when a newpaper runs with a sensationalist headline such as "xxxx government department spends £300k a year on paperclips" or "xxxx organisation spends £500k on tea and coffee" the man on the street screams in horror and starts with the predictable comparisons as to how that money could be used to fund the care workers or more nurses.

 

That man on street never bothers to consider nor even cares as to specifically how that spend is broken down or how many people it applies to or how big the ratio is etc... etc.... NO, they just do the reactionary ill informed response and outrage.

 

The same applies to any, even absolutely miniscule hint towards spending taxpayer monies on any possible project that isn't social care or NHS. Its immediately followed by screams of "how many doctors would that pay for...." "....that would be xxx pay rise for nurses..."

 

I dont know how many more times I have to say it on how many different threads. Government spending goes beyond merely the NHS and Care.Some of us welcome investment in other things and quite frankly dont care what the funding COULD be used for instead. Sometimes things are just needed which are not necessarilly the populist vote. They are still needed.

 

£120 billion pounds for the NHS this year Anna. Based on our current estimated population that's around £1,835 for every single person. Second largest expenditure just below pensions with an 18% share of all the total government spending.

 

Out of curiosity do you know that in 2016 the entire spend on ALL transportation was 3%.

 

When will people ever be satisfied. How much is more for the bottomless pit? What level of neglect to everything else should be tolerated to keep feeding it in your opinion?

Edited April 4, 2017 by ECCOnoob