And you accuse me of showing a biased view...
Brown's tax raid magnified the problems of the pension holidays (which were actually brought in as a tax avoidance reduction measure) many fold, and were completely different to what had gone on before.
Save the NHS!
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
And you accuse me of showing a biased view...
Brown's tax raid magnified the problems of the pension holidays (which were actually brought in as a tax avoidance reduction measure) many fold, and were completely different to what had gone on before.
So despite you assertion that there's been no improvement in the NHS with Labour's investment in it, we can see that things are actually getting better in these key criteria. How is spending less money on healthcare going to resolve any of these issues?
Last edited:
I suspect that that particular fairy story says a whole lot about the rest of your post
Are you insinuating that I'm telling a lie?
If you are. You are very much in the wrong.
My assertions are based on outcomes, not the number of people employed or the amount of technical equipment in use.
These things have not improved out outcomes, they are, on average, the same as they were before, or at least, they have not increased anything above the average increases related to technology and lifestyle changes.
We have seen some small improvements in targeted areas, but it has been at the expense of other patients with non-targeted illnesses.
Shall we take a look at preventable deaths through treatable conditions?
http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/28835
So fourth from bottom among industrialised large countries.
Is this really a good result?
Can you explain
May I ask have you ever lived in a country\State that has a privately run health system or do you just google evrything?
So why do we want to move toward the worst healthcare system according to that one particular outcome?
You've also made the mistake of comparing outcomes without looking at inputs. In the UK we have one of the highest levels of obesity and alcohol abuse which is obviously going to put a strain on the NHS and have an effect on the number of preventable deaths. Yet you and the Conservative party have decried any attempts to do anything about this as nanny statism and talking about personal responsibility yet never answering the question about what happens when people don't take personal responsibility.
Edit: Furthermore, the stats in your post are from 2002-2003, mid way through Labour's term in office. Didn't health spending increase dramatically from around that point anyway?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
scorza, anywhere they got was achieved by spending money we don't have.
Put simply we are spending above our means, this has to be sorted somehow.
Put simply we are spending above our means, this has to be sorted somehow.
Suspended
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 13,597
The later economic climate magnified the problem. The pension holidays were another example of that Govt's drive to give firms( the biggest donors to the party at that time) more cash at the expense of others.
You, biased Dolph - I wonder where people get that idea from
Lansley is pathetic. How he cannot listen to the masses of people, staff, even Dr's saying his plans need atleast serious ammendments is dreadfull. All of this could have been done without spending the huge amount on redundancy payments. Odd how when staff return as contractors they dont account as management cost !
Last edited:
Is anyone saying the NHS doesn't need reform? And is it really true that the better performing countries "use completely different systems that don't involve national monopolies and massive central control, instead focusing on patients choice and any willing provider"? Please prove this with a side-by-side comparison of the 17 countries ranked higher than the UK.
I can tell you right now that your claim is ********. For example, Norway (ranked 11th) requires patients to choose their GP from a government list. Patients can only switch GPs twice a year, and only if there is no waiting list for their new GP. Iceland (ranked 15th) has no private hospitals and almost no private health insurance. The NHS is clearly in need of reform, but it's still far more flexible than either of these systems, both of which involve even larger state monopolies and massive central control.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
I'm sure there are such people; I very much doubt that any of them work in or know anything at all about the NHS.
I know quite a few GPs. I know that they have undergone continuous change for years, almost all of it ill-informed, misguided and frequently subsequently reformed, often just as ineffectively.
The Government pretend that they want to increase choice and patient participation. Absolute 100% lies, GPs are continuously instructed as to where they should send patients and what treatments they are and are not allowed to prescribe. This is not a long-standing policy, it it is relatively recent gets steadily worse. If the Government were serious about increasing choice, they could stop this policy tomorrow.
As to the latest inspired idea that GPs should be handed the keys to the Treasury to do with as they wish since they clearly know more about how to spend money wisely than anyone else, there are three response
- from the older GPs - what a stupid, stupid idea; we have enough to do, just treating patients without getting involved with the day-to-day detail of managing a massive budget
- from the majority of GPs - Dear God, what am I supposed to do next? I can't cope with my current workload whilst having any sort of life!
- from the younger GPs - WOWZER! My chance to skim off an absolute fortune before anyone realises what is going on and stops it - FANTASTIC!
I have heard some fantastic, truly imaginative ideas as to how Practices can use access to this potential windfall to make a profit. Everybody wants to expand their premises or buy new premises and open a Pharmacy - there is gold to be had there - you just have to over-prescribe like mad - eventually you will be stopped, but by then you will have trousered a fortune and have dreamed up some other scam
Many practices are aware of and keen to profit from "beauty treatments" which should be much more profitable than healing the sick and let's face it, if your GP tells you that you are as ugly as sin but with the safe wave of a magic laser wand and/or injection of Botox, they can make you more beautiful than Cinderella, they must be telling the truth, right?
I can't comment on the rest of your post, other than to say that France does have a fantastic system - and it is going bankrupt fast. In France, when you have a cold, rather than taking two Paracetomol and going back to bed, you can visit your Family Doctor and demand that you be seen by a specialist . . . . who will use his years of experience to tell you to take two Paracetomol and go back to bed
As to Dolph's comments, it is important to remember that aside form being an anarchist, opposed to any form of regulation at all, he has a long-standing personal vendetta against the NHS
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
So despite dramatic increases in spending, the spending clearly isn't in line with other top countries in terms of availability/number of MRI/CT machines per population..... so where is the money going.
This is one of those things you keep ignoring, you can save billions upon billions in the NHS, without reducing spending on any actual healthcare......... AT ALL.
The problem in the NHS is WASTE, waste by very definition, isn't being used anyway.
The NHS is insanely inefficient, more doctors per person doesn't matter if all the new doctors are only treating corns, and the only waiting list going down, is the corn removal waiting list. How are those new doctors being used, how highly trained are those new doctors, are they as good as others, how has the malpractice spending increased with the increased rate of hiring, etc, etc. The stat on its own proves literally NOTHING in terms of quality of care in the NHS.
But the even bigger issue is, not that more doctors isn't a good thing but, the NHS has ALWAYS grown, as do most health systems in most countries every year since they began, thats what happens with any industry in any normal country......... how is growing, as the country grows a sign of doing things right?
THe question is, how much has spending increased VS the quality increase.
If you used to spend 50billion on 2 doctors per 1000 people in the country, and now you spend 150billion for 2.7........ is that good, or bad? if you throw billions upon billions at the NHS wouldn't an increase in doctors be the simple bare minimum outcome, wouldn't you be pretty shocked if it didn't go up. The question is, could you go back to previous spending levels, and have gone up to 70billion, maintain that 2.7 doctors, save a ridiculous amount of money and not effect healthcare in the slightest?
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
This was reformed in recent years and is no longer the case.I can't comment on the rest of your post, other than to say that France does have a fantastic system - and it is going bankrupt fast. In France, when you have a cold, rather than taking two Paracetomol and going back to bed, you can visit your Family Doctor and demand that you be seen by a specialist . . . . who will use his years of experience to tell you to take two Paracetomol and go back to bed
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2003
- Posts
- 3,527
i hope we always have an NHS. it's a fantastic institution that helps the most vulnerable. it would be horrible to have to worry about money and paying when you were too sick to think.
hopefully we can get rid of the waste and streamline, make it more efficient. it's not perfect but better than the alternative i think
hopefully we can get rid of the waste and streamline, make it more efficient. it's not perfect but better than the alternative i think
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
Don't confuse 'free universal healthcare' with the current NHS, which is 'free universal healthcare provided by one single body'.
We can have 'free universal healthcare' provided by private institutions (who in my opinion inherently do it better), like the Germans do.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
What "was reformed in recent years and is no longer the case"
Does that include dodgy doctors, struck off the Medical Register in the UK, obtaining injunctions against publication of the fact that their incompetence killed someone? After all they have to protect their business don't they?
The German healthcare system is good (primarily because more money is spent on it) but it's not perfect. Recently there have been protests against the private companies slashing costs at the hospitals they run at the expense of quality.
That's OK, there's no need to; I'm on your side.
As to Dolph's comments, it is important to remember that aside form being an anarchist, opposed to any form of regulation at all, he has a long-standing personal vendetta against the NHS
You forgot "...and he's a complete **** ******."