The Black Pill

[tokeless]

Thatcher's announcement on review of the NHS
25 January 1988
Thatcher years (1979–1990)
NHS reform
Rumoured reform
During a general election press conference in June 1987, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was asked whether she trusted the NHS enough to use it. The Prime Minister responded that she had private health insurance:

'I, along with something like five million other people, insure to enable me to go into hospital on the day I want; at the time I want, and with a doctor I want. For me, that is absolutely vital. I do that along with five million others. Like most people, I pay my dues to the National Health Service; I do not add to the queue... I exercise my right as a free citizen to spend my own money in my own way, so that I can go in on the day, at the time, with the doctor I choose and get out fast.'

For several years, NHS reform had been on the Conservative agenda, but there were other, greater priorities. Yet there had been a blizzard of rumours and reports, often from the right, including proposals for a service based on private insurance. This was deemed electoral suicide by the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher.

A surprise announcement
It was, therefore, a surprise when she announced during a BBC Panorama interview in January 1988 that a review of the NHS would be taking place. The decision to conduct the review was prompted by increasing concern over finances in the NHS.

The review was subsequently undertaken exclusively by a group of ministers including Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Nigel Lawson, Tony Newton and John Moore. The latter two ministers were later replaced by Kenneth Clarke and David Mellor.

The ministerial review committee set out to be mindful of four guiding principles:

high quality medical care should be available to all
patients should have the greatest choice possible
any changes made to the system must make real improvements in health care
decision making should be devolved to local elements, to be as close as possible to patients.
Despite lengthy debates among ministers, the review produced the following policy ideas that were tested in the white paper Working for patients a year later:

money in the healthcare system should follow the patient
promoting private health insurance by providing tax relief (eventually decided as only applicable for elderly people)
the creation of an internal market – competition would drive improvements in quality and efficiency
self-managed hospitals (later to become NHS trusts) could become service providers
fundholding by GPs would be beneficial because GPs could better assess patient needs and priorities.
During the review, some of these policy discussion topics were leaked, provoking anxiety and opposition from the public and medical organisations. The Royal College of Nursing, for example, saw the idea of promotion of private insurance and competition as threats to the NHS.

Whilst you could look at this and say it's a reasonable plan, the reality has played out differently and we have huge health inequality and long waiting lists... perhaps this is the real plan. Grind it down to bordering on failure and people will choose to go private because it taps in to the selfish gene. Thatcher was a monster imo and much of what I see as wrong in our society is because of her social division tactics and focus on the individual, rather than caring for others around you. I can remember the first time I heard a 'suit' come on to a ward and I heard him say "You only really need 2.3 staff on here"... I remember thinking how do you have a 0.3 of a staff? This was the start of the dehumanizing culture, when staff personnel became human resources. The idea that patients could be processed in a set number of days and then discharged, like commodities was from the business world. What about post op infections or complications? That's when I also noticed different areas were told you now work as units and not a 'collective' when you could assist each other, borrow equipment or staff if you needed them. Invoices were now required and it created division, which is the Tory motto and modus operandi.
Only this week, I needed an ambulance for a psychotic patient I was trying to admit. I was informed it would be a 6 hour wait... yes, 6 hours. The police ended up taking him for me. The NHS is a mess, created by the party that has always disliked the idea that care costs, when they think the market should dictate and make money from it.

[quietvoice]

Nobody, not even QV mentioned deaths Richard, just transmission.

QV said there is no scientific evidence of transmission outside.. .

Really? Please find and post where exactly I said that. If you're going to invoke my name, be prepared to back up your claim.

Logically, because I know that a "virus" has never been isolated, purified, characterized, and visualized, how the heck would I be talking about transmission of anything?



.

[Richard@DecisionSkills]

... I exercise my right as a free citizen to spend my own money in my own way, so that I can go in on the day, at the time, with the doctor I choose and get out fast.'

Grind it down to bordering on failure and people will choose to go private because it taps in to the selfish gene.

Without going down the exploitation or ill gotten route, I think you would agree that accumulation of savings, accumulation of wealth is not in and of itself evil or selfish. I’m assuming you believe people should have the freedom to use the wealth they have accumulated to take a vacation, to go on a cruise or out to a five star restaurant.

If you agree with the above, then you should agree that people can also spend their savings, the wealth they have accumulated on things other than vacations, things like better security for their home, or hiring a private tutor to educate their children, or hiring a doctor to tend to their healthcare needs. It’s their wealth. They paid their taxes, they worked hard, they have that right as free citizens.

I think the idea that anyone that chooses to uses a private doctor demonstrates selfishness is not justified. Some people pay their taxes and go on a cruise. Others pay their taxes and hire a doctor. Neither are selfish or evil.

What I would be interested in is learning what percentage of taxes went to the NHS right after WWII and if that percentage changed in the 80’s? Why did the quality of care go down? Was it the case politicians reduced taxes? Or did they reduce the percentage dedicated to healthcare? Or has the population of the UK become less healthy?

[Richard@DecisionSkills]

Here is a good read…fascinating explanation of NHS since it started. There are actually several articles celebrating 60 years of NHS.

I especially like figure 2. And that ties in with the below quote…

“During “the most expensive breakfast in British history”—Mr Blair’s TV interview with David Frost on the BBC’s Breakfast with Frost in January 2000—the prime minister had pledged to increase spending on the NHS from 6.8% of gross domestic product in 1997 to 9.2% in 2008, matching European levels of spending. These billions would be raised through taxation.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2432113/

My question, at what point does any system, healthcare or otherwise, break the metaphorical bank? How are all of these countries spending more and more and more of their GDP on healthcare? At what point does the system collapse?

The article is from 2008, so did the NHS receive this boost from 6.8% to 9.2%?

Wow…look at this…

https://www.statista.com/statistics/317 ... d-kingdom/

From 1980 until today expenditure on healthcare as part of GDP has gone up, and up, and up. So why the lower quality care? That doesn’t make sense.

Has GDP dropped significantly in the EU? I don’t think so, but I’m not sure.

[tokeless]

Nobody, not even QV mentioned deaths Richard, just transmission.

QV said there is no scientific evidence of transmission outside.. .

Really? Please find and post where exactly I said that. If you're going to invoke my name, be prepared to back up your claim.

Logically, because I know that a "virus" has never been isolated, purified, characterized, and visualized, how the heck would I be talking about transmission of anything?


I do apologise, as it was Foresaken. Now, stop clutching your pearls with indignation and smugness..

[theforsaken]

We have to wear masks and check in to the shops and sh** again now, we had to from about June to mid December, even if you were double jabbed, still had to, cause the vaccine works apparently.

we got about 2 weeks of freedom and now it's back again.
I'm really just not looking forward to 2022 honestly.. I don't want to do this bs for the rest of my life. I don't want another 2020 or 2021 but it's already looking like it's going to be more of the same or worse. Fml.

We'll be back in lockdown before February, I'm guessing either January 27 or 31, probably for another 6 months or until you get another 2 jabs. Cause the first 2 almost already don't even count anymore the way they keep pushing to reduce the time needed for the booster.

Ever since March of 2020 with the first lockdown, the lockdowns get longer and the freedom between them gets shorter and shorter. It's funny how that works. It's almost like we're being conditioned to accept this as our "new normal". And people still buy it. What a f***in time to be alive.

[tokeless]

I don't want to do this bs for the rest of my life. I don't want another 2020 or 2021

It's unlikely to be for the rest of your life... you're catastrophising the situation. Despite the restrictions, people wouldn't tolerate a future like this. The reason most are following the advice is because they believe it. The Omicrom variant has been shown to not be as dangerous, so they can't get away with exaggeration on that. I would guess 2022 will be the last year of restrictions

[Richard@DecisionSkills]

The reason most are following the advice is because they believe it.

I’m not so sure about this.

I’m unaware of many people that actually believe that masks, lockdowns, or vaccines do much of anything.

Again, look at differences across countries with varied responses yet similar results. Look at Gibraltar, 100%+ vaccinated and cases rising. Look at New York City. Two years, multiple, multiple flip flops on what advice is effective…I would submit the vast, vast majority of people do not believe the advice.

In fact, it is fairly easy to see. If people actually believed the advice, there would be 100% compliance. There would not be massive protests. There would not be fines so ridiculously large and threats for people to lose their jobs. Heck, people are so against the advice, plenty have given up their jobs.

[tokeless]

I would submit the vast, vast majority of people do not believe the advice.

The majority in the UK have accepted the vaccinations, so I would assume they have believed the advice to get the vaccine. You may counter that they have been coerced, but I don't see it with the majority.

In fact, it is fairly easy to see. If people actually believed the advice, there would be 100% compliance.

I'm not sure you can have 100%, because some people can't have it because of risks of adverse reactions. Some on religious grounds... others choose not to. To get 100% you'd be in that dictatorship you worry about... we are not there

[Richard@DecisionSkills]

To get 100% you'd be in that dictatorship you worry about... we are not there

I remember saying tyrannical, as in using political power to be oppressive. If I used dictatorship, it was in the context of government overreach.

You are not there. I am not there. We are lucky. But many people are there. Many people have lost their livelihoods, because of tyrannical policies being put in place by executive fiat. Many people have suffered needlessly.

There is ZERO reason for a city like New York to have such oppressive, burdensome, tyrannical policies. That’s 8 million people suffering, and for what gain? You think they believe in the advice, when they can easily see that it makes no significant difference on the virus? There are massive protests happening and for good reason. People hate tyranny.

[tokeless]

Many people have lost their livelihoods, because of tyrannical policies being put in place by executive fiat. Many people have suffered needlessly.

Many have lost their lives to it too. Hegemony and geopolitical wars cost lives and destroy countries. Look at Afghanistan after 20 years of help.. the fear is it will become the biggest humanitarian disaster in a decades... how did that happen after being promised freedom from tyranny and the dawn of democracy? Lucky for us, we were on the winning side eh? My point is, we 'accept' some suffering as long as it's someone else. I can only live my reality. Sorry for the diversion there..
Back to the vaccine. It doesn't, and never has been stated it stops the virus spreading, hence why it keeps rising in numbers, even in Gibraltar. What it does is stops healthcare systems being overrun, or people being seriously ill.. that's it. Having it or not won't impact the spread, but there have been many cases where people who caught it said they should have had the vaccine when they felt as Ill as they did.

[Richard@DecisionSkills]

Back to the vaccine. It doesn't, and never has been stated it stops the virus spreading,

I’m not sure where you get your information, but there are entire montages of videos put together of claims across multiple sources claiming vaccines were fundamental to stop the spread. High level politicians from multiple countries repeatedly assured everyone vaccination was they key to stopping the spread.

Here is from the CDC website as of today…

“COVID-19 vaccines are effective at protecting people from COVID-19 and help keep adults and children from getting seriously sick. COVID-19 vaccines can reduce the risk of people spreading the virus that causes COVID-19.”

Yes, it says REDUCE, not STOP. Yet that is a semantic distinction. And it’s a lie. The vaccines are doing effectively nothing to reduce the spread. It’s clear in the data. The places with the biggest spikes in COVID are places with the highest levels of vaccination.

What it does is stops healthcare systems being overrun, or people being seriously ill.. that's it. Having it or not won't impact the spread, but there have been many cases where people who caught it said they should have had the vaccine when they felt as Ill as they did.

While intuitively this sounds reasonable, it is factually wrong. You know where healthcare systems are being overrun? Where politicians have instituted the most stringent requirements. In a city like NY, you have lines around the corner to get tested, so that you can get approval to go to work or to the market, etc. The testing alone strains the system. Then come the boosters. Additional strain. And with the system comes false positives as well as expectations the health system respond to these false positives.

In places with fewer requirements hospitals are not overrun. How is that possible? Shouldn’t these unvaccinated, no mask, no mandate cities have hospitals overwhelmed? But they don’t. Again, try and explain it.

My explanation is that in cities without mandates people are not hyper vigilant, flooding hospitals with borderline cases, false positives, etc. People self select whether to go to the hospital. People are not lined up so they can guarantee their vax pass to maintain their job, etc. This lowers strain on the health system in those cities.

In other words, the very mandates designed to lower strain on the health system are having the exact opposite effect. Weird, right?

The one point I agree with is that the vaccines lower the chances of serious illness if the virus is contracted. Me for example, given my age, my chances of death are roughly half of one percent. But this doesn’t take into account my health. And you might say that death is not serious illness, but that is a murky, conveniently abstract term. Point is, my chances of getting seriously Ill is correlated with my age/health. It’s already ridiculously low. All the vaccine has to offer is to take ridiculously low and make it more ridiculously low.

I have a greater chance of death or serious illness from any number of other causes. Why the huge, huge overreach by the government on this single cause? What is going on?

[tokeless]

Ok Richard. With a wave of a wand, you now have the controls. You are in charge... what would you do and why?

[theforsaken]

Tokeless man, you have a very ",if the government is doing it or allowing it it must be the right thing"kind of view, you seen like a smart guy, so I honestly thought you'd be smart enough not to fall into a trap like that. It's almost like you're an informant the way you're baiting everyone into saying certain things as well lol.

Not accusing anyone of anything, just saying.... lol
Seriously though all the best for the new year guys, I hope everyone makes it back for this meeting in September of 2022, even though I don't like or agree with some of you, I wish you well anyway lol.

[Richard@DecisionSkills]

Ok Richard. With a wave of a wand, you now have the controls. You are in charge... what would you do and why?

With the wave of my hand. No masks, no lockdowns, no travel restrictions, vaccinations optional. By vaccination optional, I mean no vax pass, no threatening peoples jobs, etc.

Heck, with a wave of my hand, I even go back in time and don’t allow a vaccine to be created. What do you think would have happened? I can tell you. All we need to do is look at Nigeria.

With a wave, I’d follow roughly the Nigerian Model. They have 3.5% vaccination. Guess what? They are still here. The people of Nigeria will survive. They are doing just fine.

Why? Because;

-1- All the mandates have done jack nothing to make a significant difference. How many times must we discuss that the difference in outcomes between countries that stayed open and those that locked down has been negligible.

-2- Again. Look at the data. Accept the data. Don’t deny the data. The difference in outcomes between countries that have gone full bat$@#& crazy with lockdowns and those that remained open has been negligible at best.

-3- And my third reason. Look at the data. Whether you choose Mexico, Nigeria, or heck, pick a country that you think managed COVID poorly and what does the data show? That COVID was not the super deadly killer. But more importantly the vaccines and mandates did jack nothing to make a significant difference.

I’ll pose a similar question to you. If you could wave a wand and follow the response model of one country that has below 50% vaccination rate, which country would you choose and why?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... acker.html