Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
You had better hurry up if you want your say on the NHS
Topic Started: Nov 22 2015, 08:19 PM (506 Views)
Jonksy
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Deleted User
Deleted User

Researchers say the main reason for low survival rates in the UK seems to be delayed diagnosis, underuse of successful treatments and unequal access to treatment, particularly among elderly people.
However, patient factors are not accounted for, such as the level of smoking, alcohol misuse and poor diet in the UK.
It could be the case that poor cancer care in the UK is not solely to blame for the below average cancer survival rates, but may also be related to the factors listed above.

OK so the best way to reduce delayed diagnosis and promote equal access to treatment is to charge patients to see their doctors and make them contribute towards their treatment?
 ::)
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jonksy
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
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.
Wasn't hospital parking charges going to be used to bolster NHS finances?

Private firms getting up to 100% of profits from hospital parking: Companies walking away with millions patients wrongly believe is being invested in vital treatment

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3037724/Private-firms-getting-100-profits-hospital-parking-Companies-walking-away-millions-patients-wrongly-believe-invested-vital-treatment.html#ixzz3sLhFlmPe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Jonksy
Nov 23 2015, 08:36 PM
skwirked
Nov 23 2015, 11:03 AM
Tytoalba
Nov 23 2015, 10:50 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
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.
Wasn't hospital parking charges going to be used to bolster NHS finances?

Private firms getting up to 100% of profits from hospital parking: Companies walking away with millions patients wrongly believe is being invested in vital treatment

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3037724/Private-firms-getting-100-profits-hospital-parking-Companies-walking-away-millions-patients-wrongly-believe-invested-vital-treatment.html#ixzz3sLhFlmPe

Perhaps you are unaware of the costs involved in running a car park?

Firstly you need a grumpy and unhelpful pensioner to patrol the place and harass sick people, then you need someone to empty the ticket machines, and if you think vehicle licence plate recognition software writes itself and automatic fine billing is child's play you have another thing coming. And it's always wise to make sure the hospital pays for any illumination in the evening.

A few thousand pounds a week is nothing to a parasitical wankstain "businessman" who runs a very important sector of the high tech and booming er...economy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 23 2015, 05:34 PM
. . .What we are seeing is a much larger contribution to Health Care by private means in these countries compared with the UK.

Indeed
Quote:
 
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.


This very recent OECD link to an Excel file may help http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/OECD-Health-Statistics-2015-Frequently-Requested-Data.xls

Seems outside of the third world only Estonia has lower than the UK which supports your point

However several seem higher in public expenditure per capita (although they do use a $PPP modifier)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 23 2015, 05:00 PM
gansao
Nov 23 2015, 04:58 PM
RJD
Nov 23 2015, 04:55 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep


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!
Wouldn't reading an expert view make sense

From requests for glasses to concerns over colds, it’s frustrating when people book GP appointments unnecessarily and it undermines our work

Dr Faraz Majid writing in the Guardian
 
Inappropriate appointments being booked is another significant reason why the demand for GP appointments is so high. Self-management of trivial conditions is on the wane. A rising number of people are going to see their doctor within 24 hours of self-limiting symptoms starting such as a runny nose, sore throat, cough, diarrhoea or back pain. A significant number don’t even try simple remedies like paracetamol before coming.

I have also had patients return after 24 hours to complain that their cold had not cleared despite being clearly told that it could take 7-10 days and reminded that antibiotics do not work on viral illnesses.


But then he's only a GP
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Steve K
Nov 23 2015, 08:57 PM
skwirked
Nov 23 2015, 05:00 PM
gansao
Nov 23 2015, 04:58 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Sick = missing at least 1 limb and at least one lesser body part.

We didn ave nunna dis namby pamby ballercks durin da war!
Wouldn't reading an expert view make sense

From requests for glasses to concerns over colds, it’s frustrating when people book GP appointments unnecessarily and it undermines our work

Dr Faraz Majid writing in the Guardian
 
Inappropriate appointments being booked is another significant reason why the demand for GP appointments is so high. Self-management of trivial conditions is on the wane. A rising number of people are going to see their doctor within 24 hours of self-limiting symptoms starting such as a runny nose, sore throat, cough, diarrhoea or back pain. A significant number don’t even try simple remedies like paracetamol before coming.

I have also had patients return after 24 hours to complain that their cold had not cleared despite being clearly told that it could take 7-10 days and reminded that antibiotics do not work on viral illnesses.


But then he's only a GP


Expert or not this...I have also had patients return after 24 hours to complain that their cold had not cleared despite being clearly told that it could take 7-10 days and reminded that antibiotics do not work on viral illnesses. is either bollocks or is presented out of context.
Any surgery that would allow a patient to book an appointment in those circumstances just 24 hours after an initial appointment is hardly busy.
At best they are going back to the surgery only to get an ear full from the receptionist.

There is a lack of awareness about what GPs do. I have had bizarre requests from patients including a request for me to “prescribe” new shoes for a woman from Afghanistan and a man from Slovakia asking me for a prescription for new glasses. Requests to prescribe (yet to be invented) “energy boosting medication” are not uncommon either.
Well once again he doesnt say how often this occurs but in our surgery you need to tell the receptionist roughly what the problem is if you want a quick appointment and if you ask for glasses or shoes she will gently lead you into the right direction.

I am not sure that the article has any great value. Just a GP pointing out some annoying traits of his patients not an evaluation of how much actual time is wasted by them.

Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Nov 23 2015, 09:11 PM


I am not sure that the article has any great value. Just a GP pointing out some annoying traits of his patients not an evaluation of how much actual time is wasted by them.


Of course!
There is also some question as to its accuracy/integrity ........

Quote:
 
I have also had patients return after 24 hours to complain that their cold had not cleared despite being clearly told that it could take 7-10 days


If he had said 'a patient' instead of the plural I would not doubt his word .... but he's obviously egging it up.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 23 2015, 08:57 PM
skwirked
Nov 23 2015, 05:00 PM
gansao
Nov 23 2015, 04:58 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Sick = missing at least 1 limb and at least one lesser body part.

We didn ave nunna dis namby pamby ballercks durin da war!
Wouldn't reading an expert view make sense

From requests for glasses to concerns over colds, it’s frustrating when people book GP appointments unnecessarily and it undermines our work

Dr Faraz Majid writing in the Guardian
 
Inappropriate appointments being booked is another significant reason why the demand for GP appointments is so high. Self-management of trivial conditions is on the wane. A rising number of people are going to see their doctor within 24 hours of self-limiting symptoms starting such as a runny nose, sore throat, cough, diarrhoea or back pain. A significant number don’t even try simple remedies like paracetamol before coming.

I have also had patients return after 24 hours to complain that their cold had not cleared despite being clearly told that it could take 7-10 days and reminded that antibiotics do not work on viral illnesses.


But then he's only a GP
One gp's opinion wow, I could get other opinions.

Are you going to provide proof that charges to see drs make fiscal sense in the long run or just another 'wild arsed guess'?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

My surgery texts you 24 hours before an appointment. Makes you phone in at a certain time for urgent appointments and has online appointments available for three or four weeks ahead. They also have an online surgery where you tell rhem your symptoms and they advise you via email.
I dont know how widespread this stuff is.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Nov 23 2015, 09:46 PM
gansao
Nov 23 2015, 09:11 PM


I am not sure that the article has any great value. Just a GP pointing out some annoying traits of his patients not an evaluation of how much actual time is wasted by them.


Of course!
There is also some question as to its accuracy/integrity ........

Quote:
 
I have also had patients return after 24 hours to complain that their cold had not cleared despite being clearly told that it could take 7-10 days


If he had said 'a patient' instead of the plural I would not doubt his word .... but he's obviously egging it up.


I have spoken to my wife on more than one occasion regarding GP's surgery's, she is the office manager at our local Surgery, she tells me that DNA's (did not arrive) are an every day occurrence, along with trivial matters that could have been dealt with over the phone, they also have a system whereby the computer automaticall texts the "patient" on the morning of the day of their appontment to remind them, this also fails to make them come in at times.

The surgery opens at 0800 and closes at 2000 hrs, their are queues outside the door when she gets there at 0715 and sometime she too does not finish until 1900 and at this time of year I pick her up as it is dark and cold.

Sometimes the locum doctors do not turn up and the backlog very quickly builds up meaning that other doctors have to share the load, there are 10500 patients on the books with only 5 fulltime doctors and 3 locums, 3 nurses and 2 triages, the car park is a nightmare.

the surgery has been without a practise manager for several months now and my wife has to try and juggle both jobs as well as keep the doctors in line (no easy task) I have tried to explain to her that stress is like electricity, you cannot see it and it can kill, but she carries on doggedly and hopes that things will improve. :rubchin:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Some more facts then.

http://www.gponline.com/patients-miss-5-appointments-gp-practices/article/1359317

- 5% of all appts missed 2015

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/expat-health/11384780/Netherlands-tops-health-care-rankings-with-UK-in-14th-place.html

- uk performance lags
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Rich
Nov 23 2015, 10:02 PM
Affa
Nov 23 2015, 09:46 PM
gansao
Nov 23 2015, 09:11 PM


I am not sure that the article has any great value. Just a GP pointing out some annoying traits of his patients not an evaluation of how much actual time is wasted by them.


Of course!
There is also some question as to its accuracy/integrity ........

Quote:
 
I have also had patients return after 24 hours to complain that their cold had not cleared despite being clearly told that it could take 7-10 days


If he had said 'a patient' instead of the plural I would not doubt his word .... but he's obviously egging it up.


I have spoken to my wife on more than one occasion regarding GP's surgery's, she is the office manager at our local Surgery, she tells me that DNA's (did not arrive) are an every day occurrence, along with trivial matters that could have been dealt with over the phone, they also have a system whereby the computer automaticall texts the "patient" on the morning of the day of their appontment to remind them, this also fails to make them come in at times.

The surgery opens at 0800 and closes at 2000 hrs, their are queues outside the door when she gets there at 0715 and sometime she too does not finish until 1900 and at this time of year I pick her up as it is dark and cold.

Sometimes the locum doctors do not turn up and the backlog very quickly builds up meaning that other doctors have to share the load, there are 10500 patients on the books with only 5 fulltime doctors and 3 locums, 3 nurses and 2 triages, the car park is a nightmare.

the surgery has been without a practise manager for several months now and my wife has to try and juggle both jobs as well as keep the doctors in line (no easy task) I have tried to explain to her that stress is like electricity, you cannot see it and it can kill, but she carries on doggedly and hopes that things will improve. :rubchin:


I can only convey my genuine admiration for your wife Rich.She and others like her are the backbone of the NHS.


Your post describes a difficult situation but not one that is entirely the patients fault and one that I can ( as a patient) relate to.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]

Got to smile ...... when reading that 'locum doctors' are also frequently DNAs.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 23 2015, 08:53 PM
RJD
Nov 23 2015, 05:34 PM
. . .What we are seeing is a much larger contribution to Health Care by private means in these countries compared with the UK.

Indeed
Quote:
 
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.


This very recent OECD link to an Excel file may help http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/OECD-Health-Statistics-2015-Frequently-Requested-Data.xls

Seems outside of the third world only Estonia has lower than the UK which supports your point

However several seem higher in public expenditure per capita (although they do use a $PPP modifier)
Thank you. Saved me some time.
Undertaking a few sums gives us
Current Health Expenditure per capita, US$ purchasing power parity (2014)

Denmark $4553 85.2% = $3879
France $4124 77.7% = $3204
Germany $4819 77.2% = $3720
Italy $3077
Holland $5131 85.8% = $4402
Sweden $4904 81.2% = $3982
Switzerland $6325 65.8% = $4161
UK $3235
USA $8713 48.6% = $4324


I do not have the factor for the UK, but suspect it is ~95% State funded.

Here we see the amount the State spends per capita from taxes and clearly that is a lot less than most others. However it is also true that most others see a greater contribution from other sources. My point that with the parlous state of the economy little more can be obtained from the State to make up the gap and I see no reason why dogma should be put in the way of obtaining additional funding from other sources than just taxation.




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Very useful file. I have drilled down a bit further:

Public Expenditure on health as a % of total expenditure (2013 or nearest)

Denmark 84.3%
France 78.7%
Germany 76.3%
Italy 77.4%
Holland 87.6%
Norway 85%
Spain 71.5%
Sweden 84.1%
Switzerland 66.1%
UK 83.3%
USA 48.2%

Must admit to being very surprised by the UK figure which I thought a lot higher.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 24 2015, 10:21 AM
Very useful file. I have drilled down a bit further:

Public Expenditure on health as a % of total expenditure (2013 or nearest)

Denmark84.3%
France78.7%
Germany76.3%
Italy77.4%
Holland87.6%
Norway85%
Spain71.5%
Sweden84.1%
Switzerland66.1%
UK83.3%
USA 48.2%

Must admit to being very surprised by the UK figure which I thought a lot higher.
same here

I got their 2013 UK figure per capita of state funded to be $2802 PPP (Purchasing power parity) and 87% of all UK healthcare

But UKpublicspending tell me in 2013 population was 63.488 million and Health spend £124,259 million and that's £1,957 per capita or $3204 at the year end exchange rate of 1.6373

So PPP seems to introduce a 14% distortion :rubchin:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Interesting chart on page 2 of this. The UK is well down the spending list (I can't copy and paste from pdf files, if someone has that ability please feel free:-
Figure 2. Health spending (excluding investment) as a share of GDP, OECD countries, 2013

http://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/Focus-Health-Spending-2015.pdf
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 24 2015, 12:45 PM
RJD
Nov 24 2015, 10:21 AM
Very useful file. I have drilled down a bit further:

Public Expenditure on health as a % of total expenditure (2013 or nearest)

Denmark84.3%
France78.7%
Germany76.3%
Italy77.4%
Holland87.6%
Norway85%
Spain71.5%
Sweden84.1%
Switzerland66.1%
UK83.3%
USA 48.2%

Must admit to being very surprised by the UK figure which I thought a lot higher.
same here

I got their 2013 UK figure per capita of state funded to be $2802 PPP (Purchasing power parity) and 87% of all UK healthcare

But UKpublicspending tell me in 2013 population was 63.488 million and Health spend £124,259 million and that's £1,957 per capita or $3204 at the year end exchange rate of 1.6373

So PPP seems to introduce a 14% distortion :rubchin:
Holland has the best outcomes and its public spending is the highest of the lot listed.
Edited by skwirked, Nov 24 2015, 12:58 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Nov 24 2015, 12:53 PM
Interesting chart on page 2 of this. The UK is well down the spending list (I can't copy and paste from pdf files, if someone has that ability please feel free:-
Figure 2. Health spending (excluding investment) as a share of GDP, OECD countries, 2013

http://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/Focus-Health-Spending-2015.pdf
Yes posting images from pdf is so long winded and life is too short

I believe this is effectively the same data though as I saw this on route to the OECD data

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 24 2015, 01:24 PM

I believe this is effectively the same data though as I saw this on route to the OECD data

Cheers, same data used.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 24 2015, 01:24 PM
papasmurf
Nov 24 2015, 12:53 PM
Interesting chart on page 2 of this. The UK is well down the spending list (I can't copy and paste from pdf files, if someone has that ability please feel free:-
Figure 2. Health spending (excluding investment) as a share of GDP, OECD countries, 2013

http://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/Focus-Health-Spending-2015.pdf
Yes posting images from pdf is so long winded and life is too short

I believe this is effectively the same data though as I saw this on route to the OECD data

Posted Image
But as we know spending per GDP is not the evidence required, it is spending per capita that counts as that is supposed real money spent on counted real individuals. Saying we must have to spend a greater greater portion of GDP that Chickycafurka is just a macho statement.

Yes conversions from currencies will distort results as they attempt to find a method of normalisation, also the count of what is or what is not in the public or private accounts across countries will be a grey rather than black and white decision, but one can judge the drift of things. Yes many find it good or acceptable to get the private providers to contribute more.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
An additional note: looking at the graphic baldly would indicate that the USA is top of the League when it comes to health provision and we know that is not true.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Another interesting table:-

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/total-expenditure-on-health-per-capita_20758480-table2





Edited by papasmurf, Nov 24 2015, 01:42 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
and another one:-

The underfunded NHS seems to be doing rather well.

Posted Image
Edited by papasmurf, Nov 24 2015, 01:47 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Old data that shows bad outcomes re 'healthy lives'.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 24 2015, 02:02 PM
Old data that shows bad outcomes re 'healthy lives'.
A bit difficult to counter bad outcome re healthy lives:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34777348

Malnutrition causing thousands of hospital admissions

By Helen Carter & Daniel Wainwright
BBC News


23 November 2015

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Nov 24 2015, 01:45 PM
and another one:-

The underfunded NHS seems to be doing rather well.

Posted Image
The Government has just announced that there will be another 4 billion pounds additional for the NHS. No talk of privatisation or additional fees there. I like to see them shooting the Labour party rabbits before they are released. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Nov 24 2015, 03:25 PM
No talk of privatisation or additional fees there.
That does not mean the sneaky underhanded bastards aren't planning it or are already in negotiations about it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Nov 24 2015, 02:11 PM
skwirked
Nov 24 2015, 02:02 PM
Old data that shows bad outcomes re 'healthy lives'.
A bit difficult to counter bad outcome re healthy lives:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34777348

Malnutrition causing thousands of hospital admissions

By Helen Carter & Daniel Wainwright
BBC News


23 November 2015

I've been one of them (not a joke).

Unpleasant illnesses.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Nov 24 2015, 03:25 PM
papasmurf
Nov 24 2015, 01:45 PM
and another one:-

The underfunded NHS seems to be doing rather well.

Posted Image
The Government has just announced that there will be another 4 billion pounds additional for the NHS. No talk of privatisation or additional fees there. I like to see them shooting the Labour party rabbits before they are released. :)
If doing rather well then why the need for more funds and why are cancer outcomes not top of the league? "Rather well" is just another one of those fuzzy meaningless statements.
Considering there is going to be ~£2b shortfall this year 2015/16, so they claim, then this increase in budget will soon be swallowed up.
I would like to see the efficiency gains promised by the NHS Bosses. Where are they?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 24 2015, 03:47 PM
Tytoalba
Nov 24 2015, 03:25 PM
papasmurf
Nov 24 2015, 01:45 PM
and another one:-

The underfunded NHS seems to be doing rather well.

Posted Image
The Government has just announced that there will be another 4 billion pounds additional for the NHS. No talk of privatisation or additional fees there. I like to see them shooting the Labour party rabbits before they are released. :)
If doing rather well then why the need for more funds and why are cancer outcomes not top of the league? "Rather well" is just another one of those fuzzy meaningless statements.
Considering there is going to be ~£2b shortfall this year 2015/16, so they claim, then this increase in budget will soon be swallowed up.
I would like to see the efficiency gains promised by the NHS Bosses. Where are they?
There is nothing remotely fuzzy about interpreting all the "1"'s in that diagram as doing rather well. :facepalm:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Nov 24 2015, 03:52 PM
There is nothing remotely fuzzy about interpreting all the "1"'s in that diagram as doing rather well. :facepalm:
Quite. I expect he does not like his hero countries doing rather badly.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jaguar
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Since 1948 the NHS has survived Tory governments. It survived 18 consecutive years of Tory governments and under Thatcher, for 11 of those years, there was just as much right wing agenda as now. The only difference is that New Labour set in motion the PFI which is costing it dear now.
So, considering that since the NHS was created we have had a conservative government way more times that any other, the NHS is still here, doing more than it has ever done before, and is receiving more funding than at any time in its history. I have no reason to believe it will not be well looked after.

Private involvement in the NHS grew more under Labour than the Tories.
Does that mean Labour destroyed the NHS more than the Tories?

So to sum up, there was more privatisation on Labour than the Tories. Labour voted against spending increases for the NHS, also bearing in mind Labour has taken the NHS in Wales to the brink.
Why should anyone trust Labour with the NHS?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

jaguar
Nov 24 2015, 07:26 PM
Since 1948 the NHS has survived Tory governments. It survived 18 consecutive years of Tory governments and under Thatcher, for 11 of those years, there was just as much right wing agenda as now. The only difference is that New Labour set in motion the PFI which is costing it dear now.
So, considering that since the NHS was created we have had a conservative government way more times that any other, the NHS is still here, doing more than it has ever done before, and is receiving more funding than at any time in its history. I have no reason to believe it will not be well looked after.

Private involvement in the NHS grew more under Labour than the Tories.
Does that mean Labour destroyed the NHS more than the Tories?

So to sum up, there was more privatisation on Labour than the Tories. Labour voted against spending increases for the NHS, also bearing in mind Labour has taken the NHS in Wales to the brink.
Why should anyone trust Labour with the NHS?


Depends what Labour. New Labour was different from the Labour party of the 60s/70s .IMO it was further to the right than the Tory party led by Heath.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Nov 24 2015, 03:42 PM
Tytoalba
Nov 24 2015, 03:25 PM
No talk of privatisation or additional fees there.
That does not mean the sneaky underhanded bastards aren't planning it or are already in negotiations about it.
Nor does it mean that the are.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Nov 24 2015, 03:25 PM
The Government has just announced that there will be another 4 billion pounds additional for the NHS. No talk of privatisation or additional fees there. I like to see them shooting the Labour party rabbits before they are released. :)

£3.8bn I believe .......... and on the same day announce £12bn for defence spending to combat the threat of Islamic terrorism.

A thread was started asking if the UK, we the people, should be afraid of IS. I think this spend is proof that the government is more afraid of IS than it is of the NHS collapsing.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply