|
You had better hurry up if you want your say on the NHS
|
|
Topic Started: Nov 22 2015, 08:19 PM (505 Views)
|
|
Jonksy
|
Nov 22 2015, 08:19 PM
Post #1
|
- Posts:
- 2,495
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #52
- Joined:
- Jul 22, 2014
|
You’ve been asked to have your say on the NHS. You just don’t know about it
Oh dear do you think they were worried about what peeps preferred.?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/19/nhs-mandate-england-consulation-deadline
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Nov 22 2015, 08:48 PM
Post #2
|
- Posts:
- 33,941
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
Good spot by both the Guardian and you
|
|
|
| |
|
papasmurf
|
Nov 22 2015, 09:22 PM
Post #3
|
- Posts:
- 17,271
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Nov 22 2015, 08:48 PM
Good spot by both the Guardian and you https://speakout.38degrees.org.uk/campaigns/nhs-set-the-agenda
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Nov 22 2015, 10:26 PM
Post #4
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
It is very easy to believe that the NHS is Not Safe in Tory Hands.
Edited by Affa, Nov 22 2015, 10:26 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
papasmurf
|
Nov 22 2015, 10:28 PM
Post #5
|
- Posts:
- 17,271
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Affa
- Nov 22 2015, 10:26 PM
It is very easy to believe that the NHS is Not Safe in Tory Hands.
I know it isn't there are several private companies who have been trying to take it over for years.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Nov 22 2015, 10:35 PM
Post #6
|
- Posts:
- 7,580
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- Affa
- Nov 22 2015, 10:26 PM
It is very easy to believe that the NHS is Not Safe in Tory Hands.
How many times have you been told that the NHS is not sustainable by the present means of funding? The Government has promised another ten millions to fund it, but it still will not be enough because of our ageing population and its rapidly increase in numbers.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Nov 22 2015, 10:36 PM
Post #7
|
- Posts:
- 33,941
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- papasmurf
- Nov 22 2015, 10:28 PM
- Affa
- Nov 22 2015, 10:26 PM
It is very easy to believe that the NHS is Not Safe in Tory Hands.
I know it isn't there are several private companies who have been trying to take it over for years. Well the document they ask for comments on doesn't mention private, competition or outsource once.
It's all a motherhood and apple pie mis mash where everything is a priority and no tough calls will be made by this consultation
https://consultations.dh.gov.uk/mandate/mandate-to-nhs-england/supporting_documents/final_consultation_doc.pdf
|
|
|
| |
|
papasmurf
|
Nov 22 2015, 10:39 PM
Post #8
|
- Posts:
- 17,271
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Tytoalba
- Nov 22 2015, 10:35 PM
How many times have you been told that the NHS is not sustainable by the present means of funding? Britain spends less of its GDP as a percentage on health care than many other countries, and is higher rated than many as well. You are fixated on protecting the rich from being hassled for the tax they aren't paying.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Nov 22 2015, 10:46 PM
Post #9
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- Tytoalba
- Nov 22 2015, 10:35 PM
- Affa
- Nov 22 2015, 10:26 PM
It is very easy to believe that the NHS is Not Safe in Tory Hands.
How many times have you been told that the NHS is not sustainable by the present means of funding? The Government has promised another ten millions to fund it, but it still will not be enough because of our ageing population and its rapidly increase in numbers.
When will you realise that no matter how the NHS is funded it will still cost more?
If costs are you priority, then keeping the NHS as it is is the most efficient and rewarding method. Tory plans are not designed to reduce costs, improve care, or maintain standards. They wish to remove what is for them a political millstone when elections come around. There is also a strong indication that party members, supporters, and donors expect to profit personally from greater privatisation of the NHS.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Nov 22 2015, 10:48 PM
Post #10
|
- Posts:
- 33,941
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- papasmurf
- Nov 22 2015, 10:39 PM
- Tytoalba
- Nov 22 2015, 10:35 PM
How many times have you been told that the NHS is not sustainable by the present means of funding?
Britain spends less of its GDP as a percentage on health care than many other countries, and is higher rated than many as well. You are fixated on protecting the rich from being hassled for the tax they aren't paying. Perhaps you should look at how those other countries fund healthcare then. They use the very private model you hate. So please name a country or two whose system we should copy
|
|
|
| |
|
papasmurf
|
Nov 22 2015, 10:49 PM
Post #11
|
- Posts:
- 17,271
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Affa
- Nov 22 2015, 10:46 PM
When will you realise that no matter how the NHS is funded it will still cost more?
Quite. If it is privatised we will end up with a far worse service costing twice as much, with millions of people not covered.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Nov 22 2015, 11:15 PM
Post #12
|
- Posts:
- 7,580
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- Affa
- Nov 22 2015, 10:46 PM
- Tytoalba
- Nov 22 2015, 10:35 PM
- Affa
- Nov 22 2015, 10:26 PM
It is very easy to believe that the NHS is Not Safe in Tory Hands.
How many times have you been told that the NHS is not sustainable by the present means of funding? The Government has promised another ten millions to fund it, but it still will not be enough because of our ageing population and its rapidly increase in numbers.
When will you realise that no matter how the NHS is funded it will still cost more? If costs are you priority, then keeping the NHS as it is is the most efficient and rewarding method. Tory plans are not designed to reduce costs, improve care, or maintain standards. They wish to remove what is for them a political millstone when elections come around. There is also a strong indication that party members, supporters, and donors expect to profit personally from greater privatisation of the NHS. The concern is where the money is coming from to pay for the increasing demands? Isn't it reasonable to expect the patients in need to contribute something extra, such as a small payment for a visit to ones GP. or perhaps a contribution to hotel costs in hospitals. In some European countries with excellent health services additional fees for personal services are expected from the patient.
Funding of health care in France. The French health care system is funded in part by obligatory health contributions levied on all salaries, and paid by employers, employees and the self employed; in part by central government funding; and in part by users who have to pay a small fraction of the cost of most acts of health care that they receive.
Why are we so hung up on the idea that it must all be free in a l aspects pf its care at its point of need? We have accepted up front payments for dental care, with the usual whinges of course, and most are happy enough to take their animals for veterinary services for quite a large fee.
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Nov 22 2015, 11:26 PM
Post #13
|
|
Deleted User
|
- Tytoalba
- Nov 22 2015, 11:15 PM
- Affa
- Nov 22 2015, 10:46 PM
- Tytoalba
- Nov 22 2015, 10:35 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep the NHS is Not Safe in Tory Hands.
When will you realise that no matter how the NHS is funded it will still cost more? If costs are you priority, then keeping the NHS as it is is the most efficient and rewarding method. Tory plans are not designed to reduce costs, improve care, or maintain standards. They wish to remove what is for them a political millstone when elections come around. There is also a strong indication that party members, supporters, and donors expect to profit personally from greater privatisation of the NHS.
The concern is where the money is coming from to pay for the increasing demands? Isn't it reasonable to expect the patients in need to contribute something extra, such as a small payment for a visit to ones GP. or perhaps a contribution to hotel costs in hospitals. In some European countries with excellent health services additional fees for personal services are expected from the patient. Funding of health care in France. The French health care system is funded in part by obligatory health contributions levied on all salaries, and paid by employers, employees and the self employed; in part by central government funding; and in part by users who have to pay a small fraction of the cost of most acts of health care that they receive.
Why are we so hung up on the idea that it must all be free in a l aspects pf its care at its point of need? We have accepted up front payments for dental care, with the usual whinges of course, and most are happy enough to take their animals for veterinary services for quite a large fee.
Actually, WE are not hung up on the idea that it must all be free in all aspects of its care at its point of need...you are.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tigger
|
Nov 22 2015, 11:34 PM
Post #14
|
- Posts:
- 20,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Tytoalba
- Nov 22 2015, 11:15 PM
- Affa
- Nov 22 2015, 10:46 PM
- Tytoalba
- Nov 22 2015, 10:35 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep the NHS is Not Safe in Tory Hands.
When will you realise that no matter how the NHS is funded it will still cost more? If costs are you priority, then keeping the NHS as it is is the most efficient and rewarding method. Tory plans are not designed to reduce costs, improve care, or maintain standards. They wish to remove what is for them a political millstone when elections come around. There is also a strong indication that party members, supporters, and donors expect to profit personally from greater privatisation of the NHS.
The concern is where the money is coming from to pay for the increasing demands? Isn't it reasonable to expect the patients in need to contribute something extra, such as a small payment for a visit to ones GP. or perhaps a contribution to hotel costs in hospitals. In some European countries with excellent health services additional fees for personal services are expected from the patient. Funding of health care in France. The French health care system is funded in part by obligatory health contributions levied on all salaries, and paid by employers, employees and the self employed; in part by central government funding; and in part by users who have to pay a small fraction of the cost of most acts of health care that they receive.
Why are we so hung up on the idea that it must all be free in a l aspects pf its care at its point of need? We have accepted up front payments for dental care, with the usual whinges of course, and most are happy enough to take their animals for veterinary services for quite a large fee. Few will trust the motives of the present government is running a semi privatised health service, you can see it now can't you? Ok plebs you need to take out additional health insurance, and luckily a friend of mine who is also a donor to the party has just the thing you need!
Conservatives cannot be trusted with public assets, they end up thinking they are theirs.
Edited by Tigger, Nov 22 2015, 11:34 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Nov 22 2015, 11:44 PM
Post #15
|
- Posts:
- 7,580
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- gansao
- Nov 22 2015, 11:26 PM
- Tytoalba
- Nov 22 2015, 11:15 PM
- Affa
- Nov 22 2015, 10:46 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep the NHS is Not Safe in Tory Hands. no matter how the NHS is funded it will still cost more?
If costs are you priority, then keeping the NHS as it is is the most efficient and rewarding method. Tory plans are not designed to reduce costs, improve care, or maintain standards. They wish to remove what is for them a political millstone when elections come around. There is also a strong indication that party members, supporters, and donors expect to profit personally from greater privatisation of the NHS.
The concern is where the money is coming from to pay for the increasing demands? Isn't it reasonable to expect the patients in need to contribute something extra, such as a small payment for a visit to ones GP. or perhaps a contribution to hotel costs in hospitals. In some European countries with excellent health services additional fees for personal services are expected from the patient. Funding of health care in France. The French health care system is funded in part by obligatory health contributions levied on all salaries, and paid by employers, employees and the self employed; in part by central government funding; and in part by users who have to pay a small fraction of the cost of most acts of health care that they receive.
Why are we so hung up on the idea that it must all be free in a l aspects pf its care at its point of need? We have accepted up front payments for dental care, with the usual whinges of course, and most are happy enough to take their animals for veterinary services for quite a large fee.
Actually, WE are not hung up on the idea that it must all be free in all aspects of its care at its point of need...you are. Scratches head in puzzlement at reply. I have said before that I am willing to pay for some medical services and I have appointments for two speciality services awaiting, in the next few weeks, with the prospect of in patient treatment.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Nov 23 2015, 10:23 AM
Post #16
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- gansao
- Nov 22 2015, 11:26 PM
- Tytoalba
- Nov 22 2015, 11:15 PM
- Affa
- Nov 22 2015, 10:46 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep the NHS is Not Safe in Tory Hands. no matter how the NHS is funded it will still cost more?
If costs are you priority, then keeping the NHS as it is is the most efficient and rewarding method. Tory plans are not designed to reduce costs, improve care, or maintain standards. They wish to remove what is for them a political millstone when elections come around. There is also a strong indication that party members, supporters, and donors expect to profit personally from greater privatisation of the NHS.
The concern is where the money is coming from to pay for the increasing demands? Isn't it reasonable to expect the patients in need to contribute something extra, such as a small payment for a visit to ones GP. or perhaps a contribution to hotel costs in hospitals. In some European countries with excellent health services additional fees for personal services are expected from the patient. Funding of health care in France. The French health care system is funded in part by obligatory health contributions levied on all salaries, and paid by employers, employees and the self employed; in part by central government funding; and in part by users who have to pay a small fraction of the cost of most acts of health care that they receive.
Why are we so hung up on the idea that it must all be free in a l aspects pf its care at its point of need? We have accepted up front payments for dental care, with the usual whinges of course, and most are happy enough to take their animals for veterinary services for quite a large fee.
Actually, WE are not hung up on the idea that it must all be free in all aspects of its care at its point of need...you are. I am amazed at this statement and would love to see a single example of where a Usual has said he/she would welcome funding from sources other than the State. I do not believe that such has ever been mentioned on this forum and I am at a loss to recall the name of any Labour MP that endorsed such. Maybe the Claimant could enlighten?
Truth is that the French and Germans fund a considerable portion of health services via insurance. Would be interesting to see which country spends the most per capita directly by the State. I wonder if that is the UK or Cuba?
For those interested here is a Grauniad report on how other EU countries run their health services:Grauniad
If you wish for more funding for the NHS then this is unlikely to come from a State with a structural deficit of £80b PA that has already pledged and extra £8b of spending against promised improvements in productivity. The money must be found elsewhere and here we can either introduce some charges, many long overdue in my opinion, or allow increases in private sector involvement, a taboo for the Usuals. Me I welcome both.
Doctors, GPs, complain about the "Walking Well" wasting their time and the dreadful ~10% of no-shows. I think a £5.00 or £7.50 or even £10.00 up front charge, what is the cost of 20 cigarettes, could improve the situation and help fund growth in services in such surgeries. What is there to object? We can make exceptions.
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Nov 23 2015, 10:31 AM
Post #17
|
|
Deleted User
|
- Tytoalba
- Nov 22 2015, 11:44 PM
- gansao
- Nov 22 2015, 11:26 PM
- Tytoalba
- Nov 22 2015, 11:15 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep the NHS is Not Safe in Tory Hands. no matter how the NHS is funded it will still cost moreand in part by users who have to pay a small fraction of the cost of most acts of health care that they receive.
Why are we so hung up on the idea that it must all be free in a l aspects pf its care at its point of need? We have accepted up front payments for dental care, with the usual whinges of course, and most are happy enough to take their animals for veterinary services for quite a large fee.
Actually, WE are not hung up on the idea that it must all be free in all aspects of its care at its point of need...you are.
Scratches head in puzzlement at reply. I have said before that I am willing to pay for some medical services and I have appointments for two speciality services awaiting, in the next few weeks, with the prospect of in patient treatment.
No one said that you were not willing to pay. Your hang up is with the notion that that it IS free for all. We didnt need to know your future appointments.
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Nov 23 2015, 10:33 AM
Post #18
|
|
Deleted User
|
- RJD
- Nov 23 2015, 10:23 AM
- gansao
- Nov 22 2015, 11:26 PM
- Tytoalba
- Nov 22 2015, 11:15 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep the NHS is Not Safe in Tory Hands. no matter how the NHS is funded it will still cost moreand in part by users who have to pay a small fraction of the cost of most acts of health care that they receive.
Why are we so hung up on the idea that it must all be free in a l aspects pf its care at its point of need? We have accepted up front payments for dental care, with the usual whinges of course, and most are happy enough to take their animals for veterinary services for quite a large fee.
Actually, WE are not hung up on the idea that it must all be free in all aspects of its care at its point of need...you are.
I am amazed at this statement and would love to see a single example of where a Usual has said he/she would welcome funding from sources other than the State. I do not believe that such has ever been mentioned on this forum and I am at a loss to recall the name of any Labour MP that endorsed such. Maybe the Claimant could enlighten? Truth is that the French and Germans fund a considerable portion of health services via insurance. Would be interesting to see which country spends the most per capita directly by the State. I wonder if that is the UK or Cuba? For those interested here is a Grauniad report on how other EU countries run their health services: GrauniadIf you wish for more funding for the NHS then this is unlikely to come from a State with a structural deficit of £80b PA that has already pledged and extra £8b of spending against promised improvements in productivity. The money must be found elsewhere and here we can either introduce some charges, many long overdue in my opinion, or allow increases in private sector involvement, a taboo for the Usuals. Me I welcome both. Doctors, GPs, complain about the "Walking Well" wasting their time and the dreadful ~10% of no-shows. I think a £5.00 or £7.50 or even £10.00 up front charge, what is the cost of 20 cigarettes, could improve the situation and help fund growth in services in such surgeries. What is there to object? We can make exceptions.
As none of your points are anything to do with the statement that you relied to then you must be as confused as you are amazed.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Nov 23 2015, 10:50 AM
Post #19
|
- Posts:
- 7,580
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- gansao
- Nov 23 2015, 10:33 AM
- RJD
- Nov 23 2015, 10:23 AM
- gansao
- Nov 22 2015, 11:26 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep the NHS is Not Safe in Tory Hands. no matter how the NHS is funded it will still cost moreand in part by users who have to pay a small fraction of the cost of most acts of health care that they receive.
I am amazed at this statement and would love to see a single example of where a Usual has said he/she would welcome funding from sources other than the State. I do not believe that such has ever been mentioned on this forum and I am at a loss to recall the name of any Labour MP that endorsed such. Maybe the Claimant could enlighten? Truth is that the French and Germans fund a considerable portion of health services via insurance. Would be interesting to see which country spends the most per capita directly by the State. I wonder if that is the UK or Cuba? For those interested here is a Grauniad report on how other EU countries run their health services: GrauniadIf you wish for more funding for the NHS then this is unlikely to come from a State with a structural deficit of £80b PA that has already pledged and extra £8b of spending against promised improvements in productivity. The money must be found elsewhere and here we can either introduce some charges, many long overdue in my opinion, or allow increases in private sector involvement, a taboo for the Usuals. Me I welcome both. Doctors, GPs, complain about the "Walking Well" wasting their time and the dreadful ~10% of no-shows. I think a £5.00 or £7.50 or even £10.00 up front charge, what is the cost of 20 cigarettes, could improve the situation and help fund growth in services in such surgeries. What is there to object? We can make exceptions.
As none of your points are anything to do with the statement that you relied to then you must be as confused as you are amazed. You invariably answer with personal comments but without reason or argument about your own position. This is a discussion about the funding of the NHS and the means of doing so, with alternatives offered to maintain it in giving the very best of service where needed. Do you personally have any personal objections to paying for some additional funding up front in the way the French are expected to do, and if do give your reasons. The French are more socialistic in their outlook than most in Britain, and they don't seem to have a problem with it, especially as they seem to have a superior service when referred on to consultants. An open mind and pragmatic solutions to a growing funding problem instead of political dogma and a stubborn refusal to change would seem to be the better route to take.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Nov 23 2015, 10:59 AM
Post #20
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- gansao
- Nov 23 2015, 10:33 AM
- RJD
- Nov 23 2015, 10:23 AM
- gansao
- Nov 22 2015, 11:26 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep the NHS is Not Safe in Tory Hands. no matter how the NHS is funded it will still cost moreand in part by users who have to pay a small fraction of the cost of most acts of health care that they receive.
I am amazed at this statement and would love to see a single example of where a Usual has said he/she would welcome funding from sources other than the State. I do not believe that such has ever been mentioned on this forum and I am at a loss to recall the name of any Labour MP that endorsed such. Maybe the Claimant could enlighten? Truth is that the French and Germans fund a considerable portion of health services via insurance. Would be interesting to see which country spends the most per capita directly by the State. I wonder if that is the UK or Cuba? For those interested here is a Grauniad report on how other EU countries run their health services: GrauniadIf you wish for more funding for the NHS then this is unlikely to come from a State with a structural deficit of £80b PA that has already pledged and extra £8b of spending against promised improvements in productivity. The money must be found elsewhere and here we can either introduce some charges, many long overdue in my opinion, or allow increases in private sector involvement, a taboo for the Usuals. Me I welcome both. Doctors, GPs, complain about the "Walking Well" wasting their time and the dreadful ~10% of no-shows. I think a £5.00 or £7.50 or even £10.00 up front charge, what is the cost of 20 cigarettes, could improve the situation and help fund growth in services in such surgeries. What is there to object? We can make exceptions.
As none of your points are anything to do with the statement that you relied to then you must be as confused as you are amazed. Not at all you are just trying to avoid the question and show examples of your claim, which I claim are a mirage. I have never ever seen one iota of support for charging patients to obtain increases in funds by a Usual. If you have examples then put them up, if not then do the Gentlemanly thing and retract your claim.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Nov 23 2015, 11:02 AM
Post #21
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Tytoalba
- Nov 23 2015, 10:50 AM
- gansao
- Nov 23 2015, 10:33 AM
- RJD
- Nov 23 2015, 10:23 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep the NHS is Not Safe in Tory Hands. no matter how the NHS is funded it will still cost moreand in part by users who have to pay a small fraction of the cost of most acts of health care that they receive.
GrauniadIf you wish for more funding for the NHS then this is unlikely to come from a State with a structural deficit of £80b PA that has already pledged and extra £8b of spending against promised improvements in productivity. The money must be found elsewhere and here we can either introduce some charges, many long overdue in my opinion, or allow increases in private sector involvement, a taboo for the Usuals. Me I welcome both. Doctors, GPs, complain about the "Walking Well" wasting their time and the dreadful ~10% of no-shows. I think a £5.00 or £7.50 or even £10.00 up front charge, what is the cost of 20 cigarettes, could improve the situation and help fund growth in services in such surgeries. What is there to object? We can make exceptions.
As none of your points are anything to do with the statement that you relied to then you must be as confused as you are amazed.
You invariably answer with personal comments but without reason or argument about your own position. This is a discussion about the funding of the NHS and the means of doing so, with alternatives offered to maintain it in giving the very best of service where needed. Do you personally have any personal objections to paying for some additional funding up front in the way the French are expected to do, and if do give your reasons. The French are more socialistic in their outlook than most in Britain, and they don't seem to have a problem with it, especially as they seem to have a superior service when referred on to consultants. An open mind and pragmatic solutions to a growing funding problem instead of political dogma and a stubborn refusal to change would seem to be the better route to take. For some very strange reason the Usuals cannot see the socialising aspects of insurance that spread costs across all that contribute. They are fixated on one single model, that of an NHS State Soviet, and cannot see any advantages in other systems. Why this myopia?
|
|
|
| |
|
skwirked
|
Nov 23 2015, 11:03 AM
Post #22
|
- Posts:
- 5,905
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #149
- Joined:
- Sep 6, 2015
|
- Tytoalba
- Nov 23 2015, 10:50 AM
- gansao
- Nov 23 2015, 10:33 AM
- RJD
- Nov 23 2015, 10:23 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep the NHS is Not Safe in Tory Hands. no matter how the NHS is funded it will still cost moreand in part by users who have to pay a small fraction of the cost of most acts of health care that they receive.
GrauniadIf you wish for more funding for the NHS then this is unlikely to come from a State with a structural deficit of £80b PA that has already pledged and extra £8b of spending against promised improvements in productivity. The money must be found elsewhere and here we can either introduce some charges, many long overdue in my opinion, or allow increases in private sector involvement, a taboo for the Usuals. Me I welcome both. Doctors, GPs, complain about the "Walking Well" wasting their time and the dreadful ~10% of no-shows. I think a £5.00 or £7.50 or even £10.00 up front charge, what is the cost of 20 cigarettes, could improve the situation and help fund growth in services in such surgeries. What is there to object? We can make exceptions.
As none of your points are anything to do with the statement that you relied to then you must be as confused as you are amazed.
You invariably answer with personal comments but without reason or argument about your own position. This is a discussion about the funding of the NHS and the means of doing so, with alternatives offered to maintain it in giving the very best of service where needed. Do you personally have any personal objections to paying for some additional funding up front in the way the French are expected to do, and if do give your reasons. The French are more socialistic in their outlook than most in Britain, and they don't seem to have a problem with it, especially as they seem to have a superior service when referred on to consultants. An open mind and pragmatic solutions to a growing funding problem instead of political dogma and a stubborn refusal to change would seem to be the better route to take. Some facts:
We spend less than the French on healthcare.
The Bundestag scrapped charges to see GOs as it costed more in admin than was recv'd in receipts.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Nov 23 2015, 11:11 AM
Post #23
|
- Posts:
- 7,580
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- skwirked
- Nov 23 2015, 11:03 AM
- Tytoalba
- Nov 23 2015, 10:50 AM
- gansao
- Nov 23 2015, 10:33 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep the NHS is Not Safe in Tory Hands. no matter how the NHS is funded it will still cost moreand in part by users who have to pay a small fraction of the cost of most acts of health care that they receive.
Grauniad
You invariably answer with personal comments but without reason or argument about your own position. This is a discussion about the funding of the NHS and the means of doing so, with alternatives offered to maintain it in giving the very best of service where needed. Do you personally have any personal objections to paying for some additional funding up front in the way the French are expected to do, and if do give your reasons. The French are more socialistic in their outlook than most in Britain, and they don't seem to have a problem with it, especially as they seem to have a superior service when referred on to consultants. An open mind and pragmatic solutions to a growing funding problem instead of political dogma and a stubborn refusal to change would seem to be the better route to take.
Some facts: We spend less than the French on healthcare. The Bundestag scrapped charges to see GOs as it costed more in admin than was recv'd in receipts. Is the spending less per person, or by the government in taxes? If we all paid something extra up front for our own personal needs, , as they arise,whilst retaining the level of free emergency cover, wouldn't that automatically raise the level of funding to Doctors and the NHS in general? Seems to work for dentistry. There are always built in exceptions for the very poor, pregnant mums and children etc.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Nov 23 2015, 11:25 AM
Post #24
|
- Posts:
- 33,941
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- skwirked
- Nov 23 2015, 11:03 AM
Some facts:
We spend less than the French on healthcare.
So will you support the French system being used here? Seems not
- Quote:
-
The Bundestag scrapped charges to see GOs as it costed more in admin than was recv'd in receipts.
Yes typical short termism. See if you can see the parallel in this true story
Where I once worked we subsidised the coffee machine. So much that it was costing more to collect the monies than we were receiving. Some idiot said "make the coffee free then" and we did. Within weeks coffee consumption had gone through the roof and the place was inundated with abandoned half drunk cups of coffee.
Same applies with health services. Always look beyond first order effects of anything.
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Nov 23 2015, 11:58 AM
Post #25
|
|
Deleted User
|
- Tytoalba
- Nov 23 2015, 10:50 AM
- gansao
- Nov 23 2015, 10:33 AM
- RJD
- Nov 23 2015, 10:23 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep the NHS is Not Safe in Tory Hands. no matter how the NHS is funded it will still cost moreand in part by users who have to pay a small fraction of the cost of most acts of health care that they receive.
GrauniadIf you wish for more funding for the NHS then this is unlikely to come from a State with a structural deficit of £80b PA that has already pledged and extra £8b of spending against promised improvements in productivity. The money must be found elsewhere and here we can either introduce some charges, many long overdue in my opinion, or allow increases in private sector involvement, a taboo for the Usuals. Me I welcome both. Doctors, GPs, complain about the "Walking Well" wasting their time and the dreadful ~10% of no-shows. I think a £5.00 or £7.50 or even £10.00 up front charge, what is the cost of 20 cigarettes, could improve the situation and help fund growth in services in such surgeries. What is there to object? We can make exceptions.
As none of your points are anything to do with the statement that you relied to then you must be as confused as you are amazed.
You invariably answer with personal comments but without reason or argument about your own position. This is a discussion about the funding of the NHS and the means of doing so, with alternatives offered to maintain it in giving the very best of service where needed. Do you personally have any personal objections to paying for some additional funding up front in the way the French are expected to do, and if do give your reasons. The French are more socialistic in their outlook than most in Britain, and they don't seem to have a problem with it, especially as they seem to have a superior service when referred on to consultants. An open mind and pragmatic solutions to a growing funding problem instead of political dogma and a stubborn refusal to change would seem to be the better route to take.
As the man was needlessly amazed and then proceeded to ignore what I posted and post something that had nothing to do with it. I simply concluded that he was confused too. As for your point about being personal. This seems to have gone over you head...YOU claimed'Why are WE so hung up on the idea that it must all be free in a l aspects of its care at its point of need?'...when it is obvious that WE are not. YOU are. IS that so difficult for you and your friend to understand. YOU and the likes of you seem to be resentful that healthcare is free for others. As someone who has benefitted from the welfare state practically from birth I have no objections if you were to pay some additional funding either up front or from the back. Others might find it a bit more difficult though.
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Nov 23 2015, 12:00 PM
Post #26
|
|
Deleted User
|
- RJD
- Nov 23 2015, 11:02 AM
- Tytoalba
- Nov 23 2015, 10:50 AM
- gansao
- Nov 23 2015, 10:33 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep the NHS is Not Safe in Tory Hands. no matter how the NHS is funded it will still cost moreand in part by users who have to pay a small fraction of the cost of most acts of health care that they receive.
Grauniad
You invariably answer with personal comments but without reason or argument about your own position. This is a discussion about the funding of the NHS and the means of doing so, with alternatives offered to maintain it in giving the very best of service where needed. Do you personally have any personal objections to paying for some additional funding up front in the way the French are expected to do, and if do give your reasons. The French are more socialistic in their outlook than most in Britain, and they don't seem to have a problem with it, especially as they seem to have a superior service when referred on to consultants. An open mind and pragmatic solutions to a growing funding problem instead of political dogma and a stubborn refusal to change would seem to be the better route to take.
For some very strange reason the Usuals cannot see the socialising aspects of insurance that spread costs across all that contribute. They are fixated on one single model, that of an NHS State Soviet, and cannot see any advantages in other systems. Why this myopia?
Just as your friend was making an objection to personal comments up comes his friend with personal comments. You need a heart of stone not to laugh.
|
|
|
| |
|
skwirked
|
Nov 23 2015, 12:30 PM
Post #27
|
- Posts:
- 5,905
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #149
- Joined:
- Sep 6, 2015
|
Not if it costs more in admin..?
Billionth repetition!
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Nov 23 2015, 12:33 PM
Post #28
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
Some businesses provide health cover for their valued employees .... because having a reliable and available access to remedial care is very good for the business - it cuts days lost! The NHS provides everybody and every business with this same access ... only the Tories always manage to make speed secondary, beds scarce!
|
|
|
| |
|
skwirked
|
Nov 23 2015, 12:38 PM
Post #29
|
- Posts:
- 5,905
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #149
- Joined:
- Sep 6, 2015
|
- Steve K
- Nov 23 2015, 11:25 AM
- skwirked
- Nov 23 2015, 11:03 AM
Some facts:
We spend less than the French on healthcare.
So will you support the French system being used here? Seems not - Quote:
-
The Bundestag scrapped charges to see GOs as it costed more in admin than was recv'd in receipts.
Yes typical short termism. See if you can see the parallel in this true story Where I once worked we subsidised the coffee machine. So much that it was costing more to collect the monies than we were receiving. Some idiot said "make the coffee free then" and we did. Within weeks coffee consumption had gone through the roof and the place was inundated with abandoned half drunk cups of coffee. Same applies with health services. Always look beyond first order effects of anything. Can you prove thay the Bundestag scrapped them as a 'first order' flounce?
No I dont want the French system it costs more in total and you must pay. I want the level of effectiveness of thebFrench system and the rock bottom cost of ours.
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Nov 23 2015, 12:51 PM
Post #30
|
|
Deleted User
|
We should keep the funding source as it is. There should be a free and comprehensive health care system for everyone and it should be paid from tax income....
|
|
|
| |
|
ACH1967
|
Nov 23 2015, 01:23 PM
Post #31
|
- Posts:
- 4,225
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #56
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2014
|
Skwirked: Are you saying that the French outcomes are significantly better than ours? All the data I looked at seemed to indicate that we get great value for money from the NHS and outcomes vary in different areas. As far as paying for appointments is concerned until we have more detail I guess we cannot take the German example as indicative of anything. I am against fees for seeing a GDP as I believe it would deter those who may be in most need of seeing a GDP. Poor people WILL put off visiting the GDP if there is a cost, it may not be rational but it happens, and these are the people that you really want going to the doctors. The “Walking Well” and no shows are a costly annoyance. I would like to see the source (I know this was not from you) for the 10% figure. The real issue is blindingly obvious. The amount of money spent on old people. It is also unavoidable.
|
|
|
| |
|
ACH1967
|
Nov 23 2015, 01:27 PM
Post #32
|
- Posts:
- 4,225
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #56
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2014
|
- RJD
- Nov 23 2015, 10:23 AM
- gansao
- Nov 22 2015, 11:26 PM
- Tytoalba
- Nov 22 2015, 11:15 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep the NHS is Not Safe in Tory Hands. no matter how the NHS is funded it will still cost moreand in part by users who have to pay a small fraction of the cost of most acts of health care that they receive.
Why are we so hung up on the idea that it must all be free in a l aspects pf its care at its point of need? We have accepted up front payments for dental care, with the usual whinges of course, and most are happy enough to take their animals for veterinary services for quite a large fee.
Actually, WE are not hung up on the idea that it must all be free in all aspects of its care at its point of need...you are.
I am amazed at this statement and would love to see a single example of where a Usual has said he/she would welcome funding from sources other than the State. I do not believe that such has ever been mentioned on this forum and I am at a loss to recall the name of any Labour MP that endorsed such. Maybe the Claimant could enlighten? Truth is that the French and Germans fund a considerable portion of health services via insurance. Would be interesting to see which country spends the most per capita directly by the State. I wonder if that is the UK or Cuba? For those interested here is a Grauniad report on how other EU countries run their health services: GrauniadIf you wish for more funding for the NHS then this is unlikely to come from a State with a structural deficit of £80b PA that has already pledged and extra £8b of spending against promised improvements in productivity. The money must be found elsewhere and here we can either introduce some charges, many long overdue in my opinion, or allow increases in private sector involvement, a taboo for the Usuals. Me I welcome both. Doctors, GPs, complain about the "Walking Well" wasting their time and the dreadful ~10% of no-shows. I think a £5.00 or £7.50 or even £10.00 up front charge, what is the cost of 20 cigarettes, could improve the situation and help fund growth in services in such surgeries. What is there to object? We can make exceptions. I am amazed (genuinely) to see a post by you that doesn't use the word SOVIET in association with the NHS.
Hope really does spring eternal.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Nov 23 2015, 04:45 PM
Post #33
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Nov 23 2015, 11:25 AM
- skwirked
- Nov 23 2015, 11:03 AM
Some facts:
We spend less than the French on healthcare.
So will you support the French system being used here? Seems not - Quote:
-
The Bundestag scrapped charges to see GOs as it costed more in admin than was recv'd in receipts.
Yes typical short termism. See if you can see the parallel in this true story Where I once worked we subsidised the coffee machine. So much that it was costing more to collect the monies than we were receiving. Some idiot said "make the coffee free then" and we did. Within weeks coffee consumption had gone through the roof and the place was inundated with abandoned half drunk cups of coffee. Same applies with health services. Always look beyond first order effects of anything. I used to be a member of a Dinner Club where the cost of an evening's eating and imbibing was born equally by the members. That did not last long as a few always took the opportunity to ensure that their real portion of the cost was always greater than the average. These were people who are considered to be well heeled.
Why are there so many time wasters visiting GPs? Because they can and it costs them nought.
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Nov 23 2015, 04:53 PM
Post #34
|
|
Deleted User
|
- RJD
- Nov 23 2015, 04:45 PM
- Steve K
- Nov 23 2015, 11:25 AM
- skwirked
- Nov 23 2015, 11:03 AM
Some facts:
We spend less than the French on healthcare.
So will you support the French system being used here? Seems not - Quote:
-
The Bundestag scrapped charges to see GOs as it costed more in admin than was recv'd in receipts.
Yes typical short termism. See if you can see the parallel in this true story Where I once worked we subsidised the coffee machine. So much that it was costing more to collect the monies than we were receiving. Some idiot said "make the coffee free then" and we did. Within weeks coffee consumption had gone through the roof and the place was inundated with abandoned half drunk cups of coffee. Same applies with health services. Always look beyond first order effects of anything.
I used to be a member of a Dinner Club where the cost of an evening's eating and imbibing was born equally by the members. That did not last long as a few always took the opportunity to ensure that their real portion of the cost was always greater than the average. These were people who are considered to be well heeled. Why are there so many time wasters visiting GPs? Because they can and it costs them nought.
Or that they dont feel very well. Never thought of that did you?
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Nov 23 2015, 04:54 PM
Post #35
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- ACH1967
- Nov 23 2015, 01:23 PM
Skwirked: Are you saying that the French outcomes are significantly better than ours? All the data I looked at seemed to indicate that we get great value for money from the NHS and outcomes vary in different areas. As far as paying for appointments is concerned until we have more detail I guess we cannot take the German example as indicative of anything. I am against fees for seeing a GDP as I believe it would deter those who may be in most need of seeing a GDP. Poor people WILL put off visiting the GDP if there is a cost, it may not be rational but it happens, and these are the people that you really want going to the doctors. The “Walking Well” and no shows are a costly annoyance. I would like to see the source (I know this was not from you) for the 10% figure. The real issue is blindingly obvious. The amount of money spent on old people. It is also unavoidable.
That 10% figure is now a few years old and could be higher or lower. I know a GP who recently told me that on that day he had a 13% no-show. I bet it varies across the country.
I do not buy the argument that a token charge would inhibit genuinely sick poor people from visiting their GP for the reason that if they are genuinely poor then they should/will be excused from making such a payment. Same goes for those with established conditions which mean they must attend on a regular basis. The target must be the Walking Well and the No-shows.
I have said this before and know it to be true, a lot of people, particularly lonely older people visit GPs not because they feel very ill but for social reasons. I was once told by a GP of his 70% rule. 70% females. 70% with no clear urgent medical condition. 70% would have been better off staying in bed with a hot water bottle and taking an aspirin.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Nov 23 2015, 04:55 PM
Post #36
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- gansao
- Nov 23 2015, 04:53 PM
- RJD
- Nov 23 2015, 04:45 PM
- Steve K
- Nov 23 2015, 11:25 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I used to be a member of a Dinner Club where the cost of an evening's eating and imbibing was born equally by the members. That did not last long as a few always took the opportunity to ensure that their real portion of the cost was always greater than the average. These were people who are considered to be well heeled. Why are there so many time wasters visiting GPs? Because they can and it costs them nought.
Or that they dont feel very well. Never thought of that did you? By definition "time wasters" are not sick.
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Nov 23 2015, 04:58 PM
Post #37
|
|
Deleted User
|
- RJD
- Nov 23 2015, 04:55 PM
- gansao
- Nov 23 2015, 04:53 PM
- RJD
- Nov 23 2015, 04:45 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Or that they dont feel very well. Never thought of that did you?
By definition "time wasters" are not sick.
You assume that they are time wasters because you assume that they are not sick. Circular reasoning.
|
|
|
| |
|
skwirked
|
Nov 23 2015, 05:00 PM
Post #38
|
- Posts:
- 5,905
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #149
- Joined:
- Sep 6, 2015
|
- gansao
- Nov 23 2015, 04:58 PM
- RJD
- Nov 23 2015, 04:55 PM
- gansao
- Nov 23 2015, 04:53 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
By definition "time wasters" are not sick.
You assume that they are time wasters because you assume that they are not sick. Circular reasoning. Sick = missing at least 1 limb and at least one lesser body part.
We didn ave nunna dis namby pamby ballercks durin da war!
|
|
|
| |
|
Oddball
|
Nov 23 2015, 05:07 PM
Post #39
|
- Posts:
- 2,467
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #145
- Joined:
- Jul 28, 2015
|
- Tytoalba
- Nov 22 2015, 11:15 PM
- Affa
- Nov 22 2015, 10:46 PM
- Tytoalba
- Nov 22 2015, 10:35 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep the NHS is Not Safe in Tory Hands.
When will you realise that no matter how the NHS is funded it will still cost more? If costs are you priority, then keeping the NHS as it is is the most efficient and rewarding method. Tory plans are not designed to reduce costs, improve care, or maintain standards. They wish to remove what is for them a political millstone when elections come around. There is also a strong indication that party members, supporters, and donors expect to profit personally from greater privatisation of the NHS.
The concern is where the money is coming from to pay for the increasing demands? Isn't it reasonable to expect the patients in need to contribute something extra, such as a small payment for a visit to ones GP. or perhaps a contribution to hotel costs in hospitals. In some European countries with excellent health services additional fees for personal services are expected from the patient. Funding of health care in France. The French health care system is funded in part by obligatory health contributions levied on all salaries, and paid by employers, employees and the self employed; in part by central government funding; and in part by users who have to pay a small fraction of the cost of most acts of health care that they receive.
Why are we so hung up on the idea that it must all be free in a l aspects pf its care at its point of need? We have accepted up front payments for dental care, with the usual whinges of course, and most are happy enough to take their animals for veterinary services for quite a large fee. And specs and dental treatment, other than at a basic level and within personal income, age and health strictures, tend to require some or totally private payments.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Nov 23 2015, 05:34 PM
Post #40
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
Cost allocation for Health Services 2012 as a % of total health expenditure
Country State Social Security Funds Private
Denmark 85.2% 0.0% 14.8%
Germany 6.8% 70.4% 22.8%
France 3.9% 73.8% 22.3%
Holland 7.5% 78.3% 14.2%
Sweden 81.2% 0.0 18.8%
Switzerland 20.3% 45.5% 34.2%
USA 5.3% 43.3% 51.4%
Best understand what Social Security funding means for each country.
Private includes: private ins+private household+Non-profit Institutions
Source aerostat: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Healthcare_expenditure_by_financing_agent,_2012_(%25_of_current_health_expenditure)_YB15.png

LINK
What we are seeing is a much larger contribution to Health Care by private means in these countries compared with the UK.
Unfortunately I am not able at the moment to drill down and obtain absolute expenditures per capita allocated in the same fashion. But given time I can see how to get very good estimates. Now the question is, because there is a difference between the UK's expenditure per capita and other EU countries, is the higher amount, the difference, solely due to private contributions?
There has been a question as to whether or not such higher spending per capita in these countries compared with UK has any benefit? Well best check on the two big cost factors, namely cancer and heart disease and judge for yourselves.
- Quote:
-
Looking specifically at the UK and Ireland compared to neighbouring countries, the study found that: For breast cancer, survival rate in the UK was 79.2%, slightly below the European average (81.8%) and lower than France (86.1%), Germany (83.6%) and Austria (82.1%). For colon cancer, survival rate was 51.8%, lower than the European average (57%) and lower than Germany (62.2%), Austria (61.2%) and France (59.7%). For lung cancer survival was 9%, below the European average (13%) and Austria (16.7%), Germany (15.6%) and France (13.8%). For prostate cancer survival was 80.6%, below the European average and below Austria (90.4%), Germany (89.4%) and France (88.9%). For ovarian cancer, survival was 31%, below the European average (37.6%) and below Austria (41.4%), Germany (40.3%) and France (40.1%). For melanoma, survival was 85.6%, higher than the European average (83.2%) and Austria (83.1%) but below Germany (89.4%) and France (87.2%).
LINK
You decide whether or not it is worthwhile attracting more private funds into the NHS.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|