Alberich

Dec 3 2014, 07:11 PM

Watching the news tonight, I was somewhat surprised at the thrust of one of the news items. It appears that a number of hospital trusts are being fined by the government because they are treating too many patients at their A. and E. departments. The government's argument is, apparently, that they want to reduce the numbers being treated at accident and emergency departments to some notional figure last seen some years ago, and if Trusts cannot reduce the numbers being treated, they are being heavily penalised. Accepting that nearly all NHS trusts are short of cash, and accepting that they can hardly start to turn emergency cases away as they arrive, this seems a strange method of trying to reduce the numbers arriving. Hospitals react to a given situation. They themselves are hardly in a position to dictate how many emergencies they will face in any given period, and they cannot curtail the numbers they are expected to treat....at least, not by any method that would be acceptable.

It would make more sense if(say) the GPs contracts were revised, so that evenings and weekends had GP cover, than to penalise hospital trusts for doing what would appear to be their unavoidable duty. Or am I missing something?

disgruntled porker

Dec 3 2014, 08:31 PM

It doesn't suprise me in the least. I have found many of the things, both implemented and proposed by this govnt to be bereft of any hint of logic or common sense. How many u turns have they made after they have really thought things out, instead of doing so in the first place?

Steve K

Dec 4 2014, 09:29 AM

What next? Blaming "this government" for the sinking of the Titanic??

RJD

Dec 4 2014, 08:44 AM

Who was it that made the UK GPs the best paid in the EU and allowed then to opt out of out of hours plus weekend working?

Steve K

Dec 4 2014, 09:29 AM

And the key words are "since 2010"

Because this is a long running scheme introduced by Labour in 2009 called the "marginal emergency tariff" to stop hospital trusts fiddling the books by charging emergency rates for non emergency cases. See http://www.hsj.co.uk/news/finance/tariff-puts-brake-on-acute-admissions/5009718.article

What next? Blaming "this government" for the sinking of the Titanic??

C-too

Dec 4 2014, 12:59 PM

RJD

Dec 4 2014, 08:44 AM

Who was it that made the UK GPs the best paid in the EU and allowed then to opt out of out of hours plus weekend working?

A government that was intent on raising the NHS from one of the most underfunded (by many governments) health systems in the developed world?

RJD

Dec 4 2014, 05:46 PM

Again all about the spend and nothing on what is to be delivered and that is the core of Labour's problem, they seem to believe that all public spending is by definition a good thing therefore why bother about anything other than size. But we know that size is not everything!

Affa

Dec 4 2014, 07:02 PM

Most studies will usually conclude that the cost of doing something is often less than the cost of not doing something ........ cuts cost money!

Affa

Dec 4 2014, 07:02 PM

RJD

Dec 4 2014, 05:46 PM

Again all about the spend and nothing on what is to be delivered and that is the core of Labour's problem, they seem to believe that all public spending is by definition a good thing therefore why bother about anything other than size. But we know that size is not everything!

"what is/was delivered" were shorter waiting lists, shorter waiting times and the funding for MRI scanners and the like that saves lives, reduces suffering, and returns people to 'productive' good health. That's some delivery by any standards.

Only made possible because the exact opposite had been delivered by the former minimalist government ..... size does matter, when it comes to the length of time and amount of suffering those needing medical intervention are made to endure.

Most studies will usually conclude that the cost of doing something is often less than the cost of not doing something ........ cuts cost money!

Pro Veritas

Dec 4 2014, 08:36 PM

Affa

Dec 4 2014, 07:02 PM

Most studies will usually conclude that the cost of doing something is often less than the cost of not doing something ........ cuts cost money!

Any study that shows that me spending £100 I have to borrow costs me less than not spending £100 is indeed using (to steal the thread title) strange logic.

All The Best

disgruntled porker

Dec 5 2014, 09:05 AM

And if my aunty had a pair of balls, she'd be my uncle.

RJD

Dec 5 2014, 09:01 AM

Very strange logic indeed. It is also very strange to extrapolate from a plausible single example and claim a universality. Putting up the converse is also true, sometimes spending nothing is the best solution, often spending even more can bring about declines in efficiency as per the NHS.

Affa

Dec 4 2014, 01:03 PM

Steve K

Dec 4 2014, 09:29 AM

And the key words are "since 2010"

Because this is a long running scheme introduced by Labour in 2009 called the "marginal emergency tariff" to stop hospital trusts fiddling the books by charging emergency rates for non emergency cases. See http://www.hsj.co.uk/news/finance/tariff-puts-brake-on-acute-admissions/5009718.article

What next? Blaming "this government" for the sinking of the Titanic??

So the money lost (diverted) has nothing to do with this government closing A&E units, closing walk-in centres and minor injury units?

Affa

Dec 4 2014, 07:02 PM

RJD

Dec 4 2014, 05:46 PM

Again all about the spend and nothing on what is to be delivered and that is the core of Labour's problem, they seem to believe that all public spending is by definition a good thing therefore why bother about anything other than size. But we know that size is not everything!

"what is/was delivered" were shorter waiting lists, shorter waiting times and the funding for MRI scanners and the like that saves lives, reduces suffering, and returns people to 'productive' good health. That's some delivery by any standards.

Only made possible because the exact opposite had been delivered by the former minimalist government ..... size does matter, when it comes to the length of time and amount of suffering those needing medical intervention are made to endure.

Most studies will usually conclude that the cost of doing something is often less than the cost of not doing something ........ cuts cost money!

ACH1967

Dec 5 2014, 02:52 PM

Affa

Dec 4 2014, 07:02 PM

RJD

Dec 4 2014, 05:46 PM

Again all about the spend and nothing on what is to be delivered and that is the core of Labour's problem, they seem to believe that all public spending is by definition a good thing therefore why bother about anything other than size. But we know that size is not everything!

"what is/was delivered" were shorter waiting lists, shorter waiting times and the funding for MRI scanners and the like that saves lives, reduces suffering, and returns people to 'productive' good health. That's some delivery by any standards.

Only made possible because the exact opposite had been delivered by the former minimalist government ..... size does matter, when it comes to the length of time and amount of suffering those needing medical intervention are made to endure.

Most studies will usually conclude that the cost of doing something is often less than the cost of not doing something ........ cuts cost money!

Here is some simple logic for you:

SPENDING COSTS MONEY...MORE SO IF THE MONEY IS BORROWED.

ACH1967

Dec 5 2014, 02:52 PM

Here is some simple logic for you:

SPENDING COSTS MONEY...MORE SO IF THE MONEY IS BORROWED.

Affa

Dec 6 2014, 12:35 AM

ACH1967

Dec 5 2014, 02:52 PM

Here is some simple logic for you:

SPENDING COSTS MONEY...MORE SO IF THE MONEY IS BORROWED.

Not spending, even not borrowing, can and does result a greater need to spend and borrow - there are consequences to being minimalist.
Where would London be now if not for the Thames barrier?

and btw ...... this none borrowing government has borrowed more in four years than Labour did in thirteen, - more even than John Major did and his was a record at the time.

The message is invest ...... look the definition up, I've posted it already.

Affa

Dec 6 2014, 12:35 AM

ACH1967

Dec 5 2014, 02:52 PM

Here is some simple logic for you:

SPENDING COSTS MONEY...MORE SO IF THE MONEY IS BORROWED.

Not spending, even not borrowing, can and does result a greater need to spend and borrow - there are consequences to being minimalist.
Where would London be now if not for the Thames barrier?

and btw ...... this none borrowing government has borrowed more in four years than Labour did in thirteen, - more even than John Major did and his was a record at the time.

The message is invest ...... look the definition up, I've posted it already.

AndyK

Dec 6 2014, 10:15 AM

Affa

Dec 6 2014, 12:35 AM

ACH1967

Dec 5 2014, 02:52 PM

Here is some simple logic for you:

SPENDING COSTS MONEY...MORE SO IF THE MONEY IS BORROWED.

Not spending, even not borrowing, can and does result a greater need to spend and borrow - there are consequences to being minimalist.
Where would London be now if not for the Thames barrier?

and btw ...... this none borrowing government has borrowed more in four years than Labour did in thirteen, - more even than John Major did and his was a record at the time.

The message is invest ...... look the definition up, I've posted it already.

That's a non-argument, since if Labours spending plans had been followed, that borrowing and the consequential debt mountain would have been far higher and I have great doubts that it would have resulted in any more tax receipts.

Tigger

Dec 3 2014, 07:15 PM

Personally I'd be thrilled at the prospect of being treated by a tired and overworked medic.

Lewis

Dec 6 2014, 12:00 PM

In 2010 when the incompetents took over the country was growing. The totally incompetent Gideon Ozzie soon put paid to that and completely stifled growth, bringing about the situation we have today.

We are borrowing more and more and getting less. The Tories not Labour are responsible for that.

RJD

Dec 4 2014, 05:46 PM

C-too

Dec 4 2014, 12:59 PM

RJD

Dec 4 2014, 08:44 AM

Who was it that made the UK GPs the best paid in the EU and allowed then to opt out of out of hours plus weekend working?

A government that was intent on raising the NHS from one of the most underfunded (by many governments) health systems in the developed world?

Again all about the spend and nothing on what is to be delivered and that is the core of Labour's problem, they seem to believe that all public spending is by definition a good thing therefore why bother about anything other than size. But we know that size is not everything!

johnofgwent

Dec 6 2014, 12:23 PM

Tigger

Dec 3 2014, 07:15 PM

Personally I'd be thrilled at the prospect of being treated by a tired and overworked medic.

Better that than none at all, which is what you get thanks to labour misrule in wales snce 1997

Steve K

Dec 5 2014, 02:13 PM

Affa

Dec 4 2014, 01:03 PM

Steve K

Dec 4 2014, 09:29 AM

And the key words are "since 2010"

Because this is a long running scheme introduced by Labour in 2009 called the "marginal emergency tariff" to stop hospital trusts fiddling the books by charging emergency rates for non emergency cases. See http://www.hsj.co.uk/news/finance/tariff-puts-brake-on-acute-admissions/5009718.article

What next? Blaming "this government" for the sinking of the Titanic??

So the money lost (diverted) has nothing to do with this government closing A&E units, closing walk-in centres and minor injury units?

Nice attempt at the Moving goalposts 2 step, a position on Strictly awaits?

This thread is about a policy and a set of rules - that the last government put in place

C-too

Dec 6 2014, 01:27 PM

If the policy failed to fully achieve what it set out to do, then the government has had nearly 5 years to do something about it.

RJD

Dec 6 2014, 08:56 AM

Affa

Dec 6 2014, 12:35 AM

ACH1967

Dec 5 2014, 02:52 PM

Here is some simple logic for you:

SPENDING COSTS MONEY...MORE SO IF THE MONEY IS BORROWED.

Not spending, even not borrowing, can and does result a greater need to spend and borrow - there are consequences to being minimalist.
Where would London be now if not for the Thames barrier?

and btw ...... this none borrowing government has borrowed more in four years than Labour did in thirteen, - more even than John Major did and his was a record at the time.

The message is invest ...... look the definition up, I've posted it already.

There is nothing wrong with investing in infrastructure as long as such provides a definite economic benefit for future generations and is good value. Investing to employ people today to create useless White Elephants is a bad idea, especially as the finance needs to be borrowed. However, that said the left continue to fudge as borrowing to fuel current consumption, which is exactly what we are doing today with our over bloated Public Sector, is not to the benefits of future generations and nothing to do with infrastructure. We are literally affording ourselves jobs, credits, benefits etc. in the Public Sector, to be paid for by the taxes on future generations. Got it?
Why have we ring-fenced the education budget when the experience of doubling such has produced a further decline in standards? Logic dictates that the problems lie elsewhere and for those with eyes and ears it is not the pupils, but those in the Teaching Profession who are not up to the task.

AndyK

Dec 6 2014, 10:15 AM

That's a non-argument, since if Labours spending plans had been followed, that borrowing and the consequential debt mountain would have been far higher and I have great doubts that it would have resulted in any more tax receipts.

Steve K

Dec 6 2014, 12:52 PM

Lewis

Dec 6 2014, 12:00 PM

In 2010 when the incompetents took over the country was growing. The totally incompetent Gideon Ozzie soon put paid to that and completely stifled growth, bringing about the situation we have today.

We are borrowing more and more and getting less. The Tories not Labour are responsible for that.

Utter rubbish. Can I suggest you spend less time in the urban myths section of the library. No one, not even you, believes your made up stories.

Economy was collapsing in the 2 year run in to the change of government


Borrowing was massive in the same run in under Labour and has been reduced by this government

Lewis

Dec 6 2014, 06:53 PM

Well even your graphs prove what I have said was correct.

Lewis

Dec 6 2014, 06:53 PM

Steve K

Dec 6 2014, 12:52 PM

Lewis

Dec 6 2014, 12:00 PM

In 2010 when the incompetents took over the country was growing. The totally incompetent Gideon Ozzie soon put paid to that and completely stifled growth, bringing about the situation we have today.

We are borrowing more and more and getting less. The Tories not Labour are responsible for that.

Utter rubbish. Can I suggest you spend less time in the urban myths section of the library. No one, not even you, believes your made up stories.

Economy was collapsing in the 2 year run in to the change of government


Borrowing was massive in the same run in under Labour and has been reduced by this government

Well even your graphs prove what I have said was correct.

Quote:

 

No it doesn't, borrowing is down significantly over the 11% that was inherited.

AndyK

Dec 6 2014, 07:59 PM

Lewis

Dec 6 2014, 06:53 PM

Steve K

Dec 6 2014, 12:52 PM

Lewis

Dec 6 2014, 12:00 PM

In 2010 when the incompetents took over the country was growing. The totally incompetent Gideon Ozzie soon put paid to that and completely stifled growth, bringing about the situation we have today.

We are borrowing more and more and getting less. The Tories not Labour are responsible for that.

Utter rubbish. Can I suggest you spend less time in the urban myths section of the library. No one, not even you, believes your made up stories.

Economy was collapsing in the 2 year run in to the change of government


Borrowing was massive in the same run in under Labour and has been reduced by this government

Well even your graphs prove what I have said was correct.

No it doesn't, borrowing is down significantly over the 11% that was inherited.

RJD

Dec 6 2014, 08:56 AM

Affa

Dec 6 2014, 12:35 AM

ACH1967

Dec 5 2014, 02:52 PM

Here is some simple logic for you:

SPENDING COSTS MONEY...MORE SO IF THE MONEY IS BORROWED.

Not spending, even not borrowing, can and does result a greater need to spend and borrow - there are consequences to being minimalist.
Where would London be now if not for the Thames barrier?

and btw ...... this none borrowing government has borrowed more in four years than Labour did in thirteen, - more even than John Major did and his was a record at the time.

The message is invest ...... look the definition up, I've posted it already.

There is nothing wrong with investing in infrastructure as long as such provides a definite economic benefit for future generations and is good value. Investing to employ people today to create useless White Elephants is a bad idea, especially as the finance needs to be borrowed. However, that said the left continue to fudge as borrowing to fuel current consumption, which is exactly what we are doing today with our over bloated Public Sector, is not to the benefits of future generations and nothing to do with infrastructure. We are literally affording ourselves jobs, credits, benefits etc. in the Public Sector, to be paid for by the taxes on future generations. Got it?
Why have we ring-fenced the education budget when the experience of doubling such has produced a further decline in standards? Logic dictates that the problems lie elsewhere and for those with eyes and ears it is not the pupils, but those in the Teaching Profession who are not up to the task.

Rich

Dec 6 2014, 11:02 PM

Let's face it RJD, Labour know well that the only way that they can secure votes is to buy them and thus have an independent sector of society that will look after them, hand to mouth, whilst they only venture out of their paid for accommodation once every 5 years to make the same cross for the same party that cannot win votes by issuing a credible manifesto.