ChatterBank2 mins ago
the poor lose out again
don't you love it when the tories say > in real terms <
does this mean they were only joking or lying terms last time
http://itn.co.uk/uk/2...out+in+NHS+reforms%27
god help the sick under the tory and liberals
does this mean they were only joking or lying terms last time
http://itn.co.uk/uk/2...out+in+NHS+reforms%27
god help the sick under the tory and liberals
Answers
Dr Filth.... your points on the NHS are well taken, but you have undermined your issue by politicising it. The inadequacies of the NHS have been highlighted and also increasing under ALL Political Parties.
08:12 Mon 01st Aug 2011
'Real terms' is not some spin term that's been made up off-the-hoof by politicians! It's been a staple of meaningfully researching economics for decades at the very least. In fact if you'd bothered to actually look up the meaning and usage before mouthing off about it, you'd realise it's the exact opposite of taking figures at face value and is typically used to calculate the 'real' impact of spending rather than just accepting figures showing raw/gross investment - it's constantly used to deflate incomplete statistical claims. Just because you've not heard of it before, does not make it unreliable and does not make it invalid.
So using a figure that takes account of inflation/deflation, growth (or lack thereof) in GDP, and other real-world variables is less reliable than just relying on raw investment figures, is it? It'd be less gullible of me to just look at the amount of money going into services comparatively, and just ignore all other factors? Or to completely disregard figures because people I know have had bad experiences in the health service, despite the fact that the figures don't even necessarily contradict it?
Look, I'm not trying to be a tory apologist here - I'm trying to be neutral and just stick to what makes good analysis and how we can intelligently try to analyse the problems of the health service. With all due respect, even if you've 'heard of' the term, you don't come across as particularly aware of its meaning.
Look, I'm not trying to be a tory apologist here - I'm trying to be neutral and just stick to what makes good analysis and how we can intelligently try to analyse the problems of the health service. With all due respect, even if you've 'heard of' the term, you don't come across as particularly aware of its meaning.
"as soon as i hear real terms i think what has he cut down on now "
Well, you're wrong.
"i have to wait over 12 months to see a consultant i will say look at this in real terms it is only a year "
Again, if you'd have looked up the phrase 'real terms' and understood it (or read anything that I have written), then you would you know that it refers to how you measure investment/money. So you'd know that's a completely invalid application of the term...
Well, you're wrong.
"i have to wait over 12 months to see a consultant i will say look at this in real terms it is only a year "
Again, if you'd have looked up the phrase 'real terms' and understood it (or read anything that I have written), then you would you know that it refers to how you measure investment/money. So you'd know that's a completely invalid application of the term...
Reading the sort of discussion this thread represents always reminds me how many people fit/bend every variable in existence to the political (or religious) colour they are born into. It is not a discussion so much as a statement of belief(s) - and one should not attempt to mix reason into such exchanges because no amount of it is going to make any difference to the righteous believer.
-- answer removed --
"Whatever it means I`m with you Dr. THEY use the term to disguise their empty shallow promises"
For the love of Christ!
'Real Terms' is not a soundbite that's been made up by politicians! If you think it is, you are wrong- that's not a debatable point. It's quite a clearly defined term for measuring value (usually of an investment) in a certain way - with inflation, growth adjustments and other variables accounted for. If you don't believe me, then go to your local library and take a look in any introductory/reference book you can find for economics. You will find it there.
With that (i.e. the actual) definition in mind, what the spokesman in the link is promising to do is make an investment which is a net increase once said variables have been factored in. Now if you think there's something wrong or misleading about doing that, or if you think he is being insincere or deceitful in making that promise, then that's a very different objection. But you need to understand what it actually means first. Jeez.
For the love of Christ!
'Real Terms' is not a soundbite that's been made up by politicians! If you think it is, you are wrong- that's not a debatable point. It's quite a clearly defined term for measuring value (usually of an investment) in a certain way - with inflation, growth adjustments and other variables accounted for. If you don't believe me, then go to your local library and take a look in any introductory/reference book you can find for economics. You will find it there.
With that (i.e. the actual) definition in mind, what the spokesman in the link is promising to do is make an investment which is a net increase once said variables have been factored in. Now if you think there's something wrong or misleading about doing that, or if you think he is being insincere or deceitful in making that promise, then that's a very different objection. But you need to understand what it actually means first. Jeez.
It wasn't the tories that created the current target driven climate where huge departments are needed to provide the department of health with statistical information....and where time on the list is more important than clinical need...
There are some positives in that overall waiting times have fallen, and treatments for cancer are prioritised
but scare stories, while making good press are not the whole picture as no one stands up and says actually the care I had was excellent yet there are large independent surveys of various aspects of healthcare that say pretty much that.... there will always be those who are failed by the system
and there always were...
Yes the care might have been better...but the treatments that can save you today didn't exist back then...
There are some positives in that overall waiting times have fallen, and treatments for cancer are prioritised
but scare stories, while making good press are not the whole picture as no one stands up and says actually the care I had was excellent yet there are large independent surveys of various aspects of healthcare that say pretty much that.... there will always be those who are failed by the system
and there always were...
Yes the care might have been better...but the treatments that can save you today didn't exist back then...
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.