You'd have thought so, but the royal colleges and the BMA are proving rapidly that they can't be trusted due to their presentation of the opinion of a small number of members as a valid objection...
Save the NHS!
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
You'd have thought so, but the royal colleges and the BMA are proving rapidly that they can't be trusted due to their presentation of the opinion of a small number of members as a valid objection...
The processed content is already largely in the public domain (ie the interpreted risk assessment would have been used in drafting the bill among other things).
Those campaigning for this don't want a correctly interpreted document, they want the original so they can misrepresent it.
Sigh - no they aren't. All risk is, is the impact of an adverse event multiplied by the probability of that event occurring. A high risk needs to be offset by greater expected benefits. If you have too much risk it's indicative that a project is too complicated for your capability. If it's too low then it's indicative that you're portraying an overly optimistic view of your project.
The DoH's reluctance to release the risk assessment coupled with the increased risks identified in the PCT's risk assessment only means one thing imo, Andrew Lansley knows his NHS reforms will be extremely damaging to the NHS i.e. greatly increased risks with few (if any) benefits to offset the risk.
And here we have an exact example of the attitude, people who have already made up their mind because the change doesn't suit their ideology (irrespective of the number of unnecessary deaths the NHS is causing), looking for any excuse to misrepresent something to support their position because they have yet again failed to provide any actual evidence as to why the changes would be worse than maintaining the current, poorly performing in terms of healthcare outcomes and not amenable to extra spending, status quo.
I'm not misrepresenting anything, there's nothing to represent because the DoH won't release the risk assessment. Now you seem to believe that's because they know the general public are too stupid to understand it, whereas I'm a bit more sceptical - if the risk assessment showed there was a decreased risk to public health in the UK as a result of Lansley's wretched bill, I'm sure it would have been released a long time ago. That isn't misrepresentation, it's politics.
Have you been able to obtain any actual evidence that shows that these changes will do anything to improve healthcare in the UK yet? Thought not.
argumentum ex silentio
Presented earlier in the thread, evidence comparing UK healthcare to other European countries that use the any willing provider/state access model
Resorting to Latin when you're losing the argument again I see.
Presented earlier in the thread, evidence comparing UK healthcare to other European countries that use the any willing provider/state access model
Apples and oranges I'm afraid. Other European countries also spend more on healthcare than we do, there's no evidence that we'll be spending equivalent amounts, in fact Lansley's plan is for the state to spend less on healthcare.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
You would think if there was the merest hint of truth in this particular lie, the Government would be shouting it from the rooftops . . .
. . . of course, there isn't . . .
. . . and the Government aren't.
No, resorting to latin to highlight a fallacious argument. By definition you can't reasonably counter a fallacy, so there is no point in indulging the person who has made it, whether by ignorance or malice.
As pointed out numerous times in this thread (and in the studies linked to), the lack of benefit from the tripling of healthcare spending (doubling in real terms) under New Labour completely negates this argument. Increasing spending did not increase our outcomes beyond the previous prevailing trend. It's the height of stupidity to keep doing the same thing and expect different results.
Well done, you've just repeated the same argumentum ex silentio fallacy as Scorza
not to mention that you are the person who supported the party that had the vast bulk of these reforms in their manifesto without realising it...
Incidentally, why do you think the OECD comparisons are wrong? what evidence do you present to contradict them, and what is your source?
Last edited:
That is mostly due to the structure of the NHS, public services where the demand and service provision is taken separately from the funding always run into issues, because the best way to increase your funding is to fail to satisfy your customers, the exact opposite of what happens in the real economy. This is why the NHS and other public services always increase managers in times of budget increases, and decrease frontline staff at the first sign of budget restraint or reduction.
Yeah whatever, guess I must be too stupid to understand a risk assessment like the rest of the proles.
Except you're talking complete rubbish. Waiting times since the coalition took over and froze spending have soared (Source). Also, your precious "unnecessary deaths" measure was significantly lower in 2008 than it was in 2004 (by some 5,000). How can you honestly keep using this measure as evidence that the NHS is not fit for purpose, then completely ignore the fact that by that admittedly dubious measure, it actually improved under the Labour government.
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/bettergovernment/2008/01/major-study-on.html
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/ho...hs-reveals-12000-unnecessary-deaths-year.html
No, just too willing to misrepresent it
If you actually bother to read the study, the issue is that the performance fails to improve above trend when spending is taken into account, not that it fails to improve at all.
Furthermore, if you look at average time to treat statistics, rather than waiting lists, you'll see the reduction that has come in since the coalition came to power. Or in other words, some people are waiting longer, other people are waiting less time, the median is going down, not up, so overall, results are improving.
The 18 week target always pushed average time to treat up as it encourages targeting of cases based on the target, rather than clinical need, and further pushed cases of long waits after the 18 week target up in favour of tackling those just inside it. It's a shame the coalition bowed to public pressure rather than evidence and moved away from efforts to descope it.
So let's be clear, the NHS improved under Labour, and by increasing investment in the NHS, we see the expected level of improvement. Well duh.
Anyone struggling to see their GP at the moment might be interested to know the reason why: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/12/nhs-reform-gps-too-busy Thanks to the government's botched introduction of Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGss) i.e. your local GP surgery managing NHS budgets to replace Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) some GPs are having to spend 4 days away from treating patients.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
Has my hospital blown up yet?
Well done, you've just repeated the same argumentum ex silentio fallacy as Scorza
not to mention that you are the person who supported the party that had the vast bulk of these reforms in their manifesto without realising it...
Incidentally, why do you think the OECD comparisons are wrong? what evidence do you present to contradict them, and what is your source?
