Save the NHS!

We did see improvements during that time and we've seen worsening outcomes since.

Basic morality - don't tell lies. ;)

Above trend improvements compared to other European countries who did not increase spending at the same rates, we did not. Nor did we see an above trend increase compared to the Thatcher and major years.

Basic debating, don't ignore the caveats.

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/wasting_lives_a_statistical_analysis_of_nhs_performance

In advance of basic debating issues number 2, play the ball not the man ;)
 
Last edited:
Oh, Taxpayer's Alliance - well that sounds like a noble cause. So let's have a look at what a wonderful group there are. Well, well, well look here they stop the big bad government taking your hard earned money through force - quite the band of merry men aren't they!

So let's look who the common people are led by:

A fund manager --- Hmmm I suspect he is quite the libertarian! Bet you have his poster.
A former Economist for Lehmann Brothers - now I think I remember that name from somewhere ... oh they are the ***** who caused us to lose more money that even Gordon Brown could do aren't they!
A retired teacher (hmm he sounds more normal) ---- who lives in France and doesn't pay any UK Tax.

They have an alliance with a right-wing neo-facist Slovakian group and they campaign against schoolbooks for Palestinian kids --- well we wouldn't want them learning chemistry now would we far too dangerous for our banking chums and their extended families.

So can you tell me exactly Dolph in quite clear English what a bunch of Zionists nazi's (quite the irony that eh!) have to tell us about how to run or how to quantify a service they know bugger all about? Can you tell me why I should take on board such rubbish over actual patient outcome metrics.
 
Wow, I guess you really don't have anything to challenge legitimately if that is your best response. Looks like I called it just right ;)

Got any valid criticism of the data, treatment or assumptions perhaps?
 
Got any valid criticism of the data, treatment or assumptions perhaps?

1) Their assessment will never be impartial (See previous comment re bias).
2) 2008 is not the last year they have data for. Why did they cherry pick that one I wonder (see 1)
3) Because the PDF you linked doesn't actually open in Chrome, Firefox or Internet Explorer ... :rolleyes:
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-32057948

Services in the NHS in England are deteriorating in a way not seen since the early 1990s, according to a leading health think tank.

The King's Fund review said waiting times for A&E, cancer care and routine operations had all started getting worse, while deficits were growing.

It said such drops in performance had not been seen for 20 years.

But the think tank acknowledged the NHS had done as well as could be expected, given the financial climate.

Professor John Appleby, chief economist at the King's Fund, which specialises in health care policy, said: "The next government will inherit a health service that has run out of money and is operating at the very edge of its limits.

"There is now a real risk that patient care will deteriorate as service and financial pressures become overwhelming."

Government have managed to take the NHS back to the '90s. Job done for Cameron.

The report noted much of the deterioration has happened in the second-half of the Parliament with many measures of performance being maintained in the first few years.

So basically as soon as the Health and Social Care Act 2012 came into force.
 
Government have managed to take the NHS back to the '90s. Job done for Cameron.

I'm more inclined to blame Andrew Lansley and colleagues. Cameron has claimed ignorance and it is possible he's telling the truth. P.S. from Lansley's wikipedia:

While in opposition as health spokesman, Andrew Lansley accepted a donation of £21,000 from John Nash, the chairman of private healthcare provider Care UK and founder of the private equity fund Sovereign Capital, which owns several other private healthcare companies, to help fund his private office, leading to allegations of a conflict of interest.
 
I'm more inclined to blame Andrew Lansley and colleagues. Cameron has claimed ignorance and it is possible he's telling the truth. P.S. from Lansley's wikipedia:

Lansley was just Cameron's fall guy for getting an unpopular and clearly dangerous bill through parliament. It speaks volumes that he was sacked as Health Secretary shortly after it became law - I don't believe Cameron was ignorant of what was going on and if he disagreed with it he could have replaced Lansley sooner and scrapped the bill.
 
And there was me thinking the thread had got bumped because Dolph had finally got around to answering the points I raised about his "funny" link.
 
Speaking as a private NHS IT contractor. This worries me :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-32088860

When most people talk about privatisation of the NHS, they think of private companies taking over patient care, using cheap staff without training to milk the NHS dry.

Our contract however is completely different. The Labour government under Tony blair has already tried to put us out of business. The labour government spent £10 billion trying to create an IT system to replace the one we provide as part of our contract. However, the whole thing was a failure and cost the tax payer a fortune.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/18/nhs-records-system-10bn

Our contracts provide the NHS with a system that the NHS can't provide by itself. They've tried that, and failed miserably.

Personally I'd always been in two minds about my role. On the one hand I can see that we are effectively making a profit from public money that could be spent on front line healthcare, but on the other hand, we work 1st hand with the non clinical staff in the trusts and commissioning groups, and we can see the vast amounts of money that gets wasted, buying things at the end of the year that they don't need just to ensure they keep their budget next year. We see the waste in the way that they buy things whereby nothing is priced up but instead they say how much they have to spend and the seller gives them something for that amount.

The thing is as well, is that the financial terms in our contracts aren't decided by us. We had to sign up to a national framework with the Health And Social Care Information Centre. The NHS laid out how much we would get paid by customer, how much we would be fined for not meeting our service levels, and the exact requirements for what those service levels were. We had very little input in the whole thing with the NHS telling us we could either sign up to their contract, or get lost as the contract was the same for suppliers in the framework.

We played by the NHS's rules, and we sit and watch our colleagues in the public sector get paid vastly inflated wages when compared with ours, so much so that plenty of our colleagues left and jumped the fence purely to go chasing the better wages.

So why then, given all of the above, is our profit reason for labour to declare War on the private sector contractors ?
 
Nope..the lefty loon poster boy(s) have arrived.

The looney left poster boys who have raised valid concerns about what is going on due to underfunding and restructuring.

They've tried that, and failed miserably.

So have the IT contractors not that I am blaming them but both attempts can be sabotaged by poor design, specification, and management. Now how come the private sector can use that as an excuse but the public not at a below contracting level.
 
The looney left poster boys who have raised valid concerns about what is going on due to underfunding and restructuring.

Well, best they simply privatise the whole thing. It's the right thing to do if you look at it from a purely cold, scientific perspective.

Simply put...If you can afford it then you should get the best treatment, if you can't then you have got to question the persons value to the state in the first place, if the persons value is reasonable then the state weighs that against the persons cost to value ratio and treatment is based on that ratio.
 
Well, best they simply privatise the whole thing. It's the right thing to do if you look at it from a purely cold, scientific perspective.

Simply put...If you can afford it then you should get the best treatment, if you can't then you have got to question the persons value to the state in the first place, if the persons value is reasonable then the state weighs that against the persons cost to value ratio and treatment is based on that ratio.

Can you explain to me how the best treatment would be for those that could afford it. That's an assumption that is not necessarily based in fact.

Good job people never said that about you isn't it. :rolleyes:
 
Can you explain to me how the best treatment would be for those that could afford it. That's an assumption that is not necessarily based in fact.

Good job people never said that about you isn't it. :rolleyes:

I could afford it...and when I couldn't I suspect my value was sufficient to warrant treatment.




(Remember this is GD)
 
I could afford it...and when I couldn't I suspect my value was sufficient to warrant treatment.

Really, I am not so sure. The government cares about STEM specialists to drive the economy not ancient texts related to sky pixies. I am not sure they would determine your contribution was that valuable all a bit wishy washy you see. Then add the age in and well - you know ...

(Remember this is GD)

I fail to see why you need to remind me of that it's written at the top of the screen and has no bearing on what I post. If you have alter-egos for different parts of the forum then you need to go to a GP!
 
Really, I am not so sure. The government cares about STEM specialists to drive the economy not ancient texts related to sky pixies. I am not sure they would determine your contribution was that valuable all a bit wishy washy you see. Then add the age in and well - you know ...



I fail to see why you need to remind me of that it's written at the top of the screen and has no bearing on what I post. If you have alter-egos for different parts of the forum then you need to go to a GP!

The point is that I'm not actually seriously proposing such...I'm just giving the GD response. Don't treat it like something that actually needs debating. :)
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/hea...e-empty-amid-warnings-of-crisis-shortage.html

"One in three posts for trainee GPs across the country has not been filled, according to new figures which have triggered warnings of a major NHS recruitment crisis."

A worrying trend, espcially as seems med students are being advised against becoming GPs.

Then again I know a couple of friends who have recently started as doctors at hospitals and I don't see how being a GP could be any worse.....
 
Back
Top Bottom