2 Billion pounds for Syrian aid given by David Cameron.

[paulpablo]

Not at all.  If the pennies are so pinched that this aide comes at a cost of medical services currently being paid for...I can only assume that they would skimp on the least life thretening things they currently spend money on....and while that would be shitty..you'd still have it better than the refugees you'd be helping.

I do think they can do both.  I don't think that everybody can.  I think that people pitting health services against foreign aide are xenophobic fear mongering isolationists with a vested interest in that money -not- going to help refugees.
(unless, ofc, that's where they turn their profits)

Well your assumption seems to be oversimplified and wrong when looking at the evidence of what is happening.

The NHS still does provide teeth straightening for deformities, things like that.  That service seems to still be provided while budget cuts are happening, and according to the articles in those links it seems that there are much more serious outcomes than just teeth straightening not being provided.

So while I'm not an expert at how the NHS works I would take a guess that all services are still provided, teeth straightening, cancer treatment, emergency ambulances, pain treatment.  But how available, how fast, how efficient the general care is, seems to be according to the articles in the links, going downhill and blamed for causing deaths and the closing of hospitals and doctors surgeries.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well your assumption seems to be oversimplified and wrong when looking at the evidence of what is happening.

oh?

The NHS still does provide teeth straightening for deformities, things like that.  That service seems to still be provided while budget cuts are happening, and according to the articles in those links it seems that there are much more serious outcomes than just teeth straightening not being provided.

Quixotic, isn't it?  Reckon that has something to do with foreign aid?  Are you accusing me of imagining a more competent NHS, or an NHS that at least -appears- to be a rational actor..particularly if itimes were fiscally dire? On that count I may be guilty. I do, though, think that people stop doing -some- stupid shit when their strings are tightened. Not that I think this has to tighten the strings, just considering the possibility as a worst case scenario (and how it pales in comparison to the best case scanerio of those people to whom this aid is to be sent). I don't even get the treatment for dental deformities....and my country has -already- sent 4.5 billion usd....which I can't complain about -at all-.

So while I'm not an expert at how the NHS works I would take a guess that all services are still provided, teeth straightening, cancer treatment, emergency ambulances, pain treatment.  But how available, how fast, how efficient the general care is, seems to be according to the articles in the links, going downhill and blamed for causing deaths and the closing of hospitals and doctors surgeries.

Their going downhill does not seem, to me, to be related to the crisis faced by the refugees or any amount of euros they might be willing to commit to that cause.

[paulpablo]

Well your assumption seems to be oversimplified and wrong when looking at the evidence of what is happening.

oh?

The NHS still does provide teeth straightening for deformities, things like that.  That service seems to still be provided while budget cuts are happening, and according to the articles in those links it seems that there are much more serious outcomes than just teeth straightening not being provided.

Quixotic, isn't it?  Reckon that has something to do with foreign aid?  Are you accusing me of imagining a more competent NHS, or an NHS that at least -appears- to be a rational actor..particularly if itimes were fiscally dire?  On that count I may be guilty.  I do, though, think that people stop doing -some- stupid shit when their strings are tightened.  

So while I'm not an expert at how the NHS works I would take a guess that all services are still provided, teeth straightening, cancer treatment, emergency ambulances, pain treatment.  But how available, how fast, how efficient the general care is, seems to be according to the articles in the links, going downhill and blamed for causing deaths and the closing of hospitals and doctors surgeries.

Their going downhill does not seem, to me, to be related to the crisis faced by the refugees or any amount of euros you they might be willing to commit to that cause.

You just switched topics. What I'm saying is that you're wrong about the simplistic way you described the choice between teeth straightening vs humanitarian aid.  They have cut back on services which result in more than just a lack of teeth straightening and have been blamed for deaths and distress.

Refugees weren't mentioned in my last reply to you.

You're saying the NHS would act smarter with it's money when it has less money?  I've heard about the NHS funding some stupid shit before yes, girls getting breast enhancements due to claiming they were suffering from depression things like that.  I don't know how shit like that happens either, as I say I do admit some lack of knowledge when it comes to knowing how the NHS works and how people get away with things like that and obviously that money would be better off spent in humanitarian aid.
I pretty much agree to what you're saying if that is what you're saying.
There's a saying that applies to that sort of thing, history is filled with the sounds of hard wood shoes walking up stairs and silk slippers walking down.  Which basically means people have it tough, get smart, learn to improvise through hardship and then get wealthy luxurious, lazy, spend money on stupid shit and then end up going back down the stairs with their silk slippers.

[The Grand Nudger]

They haven't -actually- cut them back on account of any aid to Syria...and there's no reason that they would be necessarily cut back by an increase in foreign aid spending. There are plenty of people who would like to control the narrative so that people read it that way though, if nothing else it absolves them of their own responsibility in the cutbacks..and it probably covers for a whole hell of alot of incompetence and grift.  This thread is about syrian aid..............so of course we're talking refugees and syria? They can't be ignored, in context.

I do think that the NHS could buckle up, if it were squeezed by actual rather than imposed constraints, yes.  I think it can buckle up when It's squeezed by imposed constraints as well.  The saying you closed with seems spot on. If there was some situation where a choice had to be made between medical services and foreign aid (where one invariably and inescapably affected the other)..it's time to put on the hard wood shoes and -still- send the money to help.

Honestly, we have it too good to complain about a few billion euros, or pounds, or dollars... in the face of these people in this manner. Yes, our own systems are troubled...but our own systems still exist, we still have -alot- of something.

[paulpablo]

Not at all.  If the pennies are so pinched that this aide comes at a cost of medical services currently being paid for...I can only assume that they would skimp on the least life threatening things they currently spend money on....and while that would be shitty..you'd still have it better than the refugees you'd be helping.  A dollar goes farther in a warzone, and for people who have lost -everything-.  

I do think they can do both.  I don't think that everybody can.  I think that people pitting health services against foreign aide are xenophobic fear mongering isolationists with a vested interest in that money -not- going to help refugees.
(unless, ofc, that's where -they- turn -their- profits...or tricks, in the case of politicians)

I find it appalling that a nation that, in living memory, has been completely propped up by another nation with problems all it's own, can even accommodate such a narrative.

I wish you would say what you mean more directly in your posts sometimes.

Which nations are you talking about?  If you're talking about the loan of money to the UK by the US and Canada after the 2nd world war, that was a low interest rate loan and not aid and it was repaid.

And I'm guessing the bit above that is calling me a xenophobic fear mongering isolationist with a vested interest in that money.  Well I already admitted I have a vested interest in the hospitals around me not being shit and the education systems and police being given more money, as for the rest I'm not sure.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not you, man, lol.  The people who might be interested in selling you such a narrative...that "more foreign aid = less medical services for natives".  That's simply not true.  

There are very few 1st world countries that exist right now, the US included...that don't have others to thank for foreign aid.  It' never been easy to let go of that money, and it;s never been the case that it -couldn't- have been spent at home.  In the example you offered, we could have made more money on that loan by granting it to ourselves at our own higher interest rates....lets not pretend that it wasn't a helping hand.  It was a handout with dignity - and we bought more than the interest with it, eh (and the dignity bit appears to have been an empty promise)? That's ignoring the larger lend lease program and our clandestine running of material into a warzone of which we were not yet participants, ofc.

This aid to syria is not a loan, but it's meant to purchase something, make no mistake, they need it...and relative to them...you don't. It's not -actually- the cause of your failing hospitals, schools, or police... nor is it ever likely to become the cause of your failing hospitals, schools, or police.

[paulpablo]

They haven't -actually- cut them back on account of any aid to Syria...and there's no reason that they would be necessarily cut back by an increase in foreign aid spending.  There are plenty of people who would like to control the narrative so that people read it that way though, if nothing else it absolves them of their own responsibility in the cutbacks..and it probably covers for a whole hell of alot of incompetence and grift.   This thread is about syrian aid..............so of course we're talking refugees and syria?  They can't be ignored, in context.

I do think that the NHS could buckle up, if it were squeezed by actual rather than imposed constraints, yes.  I think it can buckle up when It's squeezed by imposed constraints as well.  The saying you closed with seems spot on.  If there was some situation where a choice had to be made between medical services and foreign aid (where one invariably and inescapably affected the other)..it's time to put on the hard wood shoes and -still- send the money to help.

yes we're talking about Syrian aid but the convo went like this.

You said it's a choice between possibly straighter teeth and humanitarian aid.

I said it's not that simple there are already cutbacks and it's blamed for causing death, I wasn't focusing on refugees at this point, just the overly optimistic and simplistic view of the NHS.

Then you pulled back the topic to the main thread topic by saying something like that not being the fault of giving aid to Syria.

I know what you're opinion is regarding Syrian refugees but what I'm saying is you shouldn't come to that conclusion by viewing it as a choice between the UK having straighter teeth and giving humanitarian aid to Syria because that isn't the choice.

[paulpablo]

Not you, man, lol.  The people who might be interested in selling you such a narrative...that "more foreign aid = less medical services for natives".  That's simply not true.  

There are very few 1st world countries that exist right now, the US included...that don't have others to thank for foreign aid.  It' never been easy to let go of that money, and it;s never been the case that it -couldn't- have been spent at home.  In the example you offered, we could have made more money on that loan by granting it to ourselves at our own higher interest rates....lets not pretend that it wasn't a helping hand.  It was a handout with dignity - and we bought more than the interest with it, eh?

This aid to syria is not a loan, but it's meant to purchase something, make no mistake.

Oh ok I misunderstood what you were posting.  But I have to say that no one is selling me that narrative.  This is my own conclusion based on constantly hearing reports of an underfunded health service, underfunded police force and underpayed teachers then hearing 2 billion is being given in "aid" which is a vague term, to Syria.  Hopefully it won't go to ISIS, hopefully it won't just be the same kind of aid that America, Canada and Europe sent in the form of weapons which were used during the conflict.

[The Grand Nudger]

Hopefully the money gets where it needs to go, or at least mostly - which is probably the best we can expect on that count.  Still, I don't see what it has to do with your NHS or teachers.  If they wanted to drop more funding to the nhs, or give teachers a raise, they could....regardless of the 2bil in foreign aid. 2bil isn't about to break any first world country. It's chump change.

People fighting for their lives and homes need weapons. You could send them cash, they'll use it to procure weapons. OFC, we've sent more than just weapons, so......

OFC there is currently no choice between straighter teeth and syrian aid, I keep telling you that's the worst case scenario if there -were- a direct relationship between the two, which there isn't..to put it into context. You don't have it that bad yet, but if you did, you'd still have it pretty good, especially relative to the people you're helping. Feeling me now?

[vorlon13]

I'm sure the 2 billion pounds is a drop in the bucket compared to the aid packages the Saudis, Bahrainis, and Qataris are ponying up.