The political parties started the campaign, the Conservatives largely on the economy and spending, Labour on the NHS. In terms of believability at least Labour’s claims went down better – by 48% to 32% people thought the claim that the NHS could not survive five more years of David Cameron was true, and by 42% to 27% that the claim the Tories wanted to cut spending back to 1930s levels was true. For the Conservatives, by 33% to 22% people believed that Labour had made £20 bn of unfunded spending commitments, but their claim that they had reduced the deficit by half was disbelieved by 49% to 24%.
Ofcom released their draft guidance on which parties should be treated as major parties in terms of election coverage. It’s open for consultation so may yet change, but as things stand UKIP will be treated as a major party (meaning broadcasters will have to give due weight to reporting them in editorial coverage), the Green party will not.
Ofcom released their draft guidance on which parties should be treated as major parties in terms of election coverage. It’s open for consultation so may yet change, but as things stand UKIP will be treated as a major party (meaning broadcasters will have to give due weight to reporting them in editorial coverage), the Green party will not.
Somewhat wide of the mark as todays CQC report rates it the worst hospital in the NHS and puts it in special measures. Believe the Daily Mail at your peril.
Ofcom released their draft guidance on which parties should be treated as major parties in terms of election coverage. It’s open for consultation so may yet change, but as things stand UKIP will be treated as a major party (meaning broadcasters will have to give due weight to reporting them in editorial coverage), the Green party will not.
Continuing the Republican possibles watch, I can confirm that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie will be in Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones' box on Sunday, with his lucky orange sweater, for the Dallas Cowboys game at the Green Bay Packers at 1pm. His son Andrew will be with him.
But this time there's a wrinkle. Following the controversy over Jones paying Christie's expenses, and Christie awarding a contract to Jones' company, Christie is paying his own way for him and his son.
Full disclosure - Sunday is my birthday, and also my best friend's. He is not a football fan, so suggested a 4pm start for the party. Following my shocked look he said "OK, when does the game end?" So it's at 5.30pm at a Cuban restaurant that gets good reviews.
Jerry Jones said "He's part of our mojo." If that's what it takes, go for it.
But, of course, I am not a fan.
As Christie would say, "I'll close that bridge when I get to it."
In an organisation the size of the NHS with the unpredictable client demands there will always be 'failures'
The doctrine of it must be public sector only and the doctrine of private is better are both wrong.
As the NHS is a system based on the technology and medical practices of 40 or 50 years ago and the patient needs of 40 or 50 years ago it is hardly shocking that it isn't providing todays needs.
The public sector, the public, the Drs, Consultants and politicians need to accept that it could work better with radical changes to the way services are provided. If the NHS fails to evolve it will die.
My daughter was in an NHS hospital for 3 days. They didn't change the sheets on her bed even once. When she went back a week later to say thank you to the staff for looking after her, not one remembered her.
Sounds like the Hospital has gone full cycle, and is back where it started after a short improvement.
Not good for private or public if we are honest.
Are you joking it is the only hospital so bad it is ranked as inadequate by CQC.
21 inadequate organisations are ranked inadequate in total out of 340.
All 21 are private sector.
No NHS run organisations are ranked inadequate.
Read the report and stop trying to defend the indefencible FFS
Do you have a link for that list?
Yes 1 hospital and 20 nursing and care homes make up the 21 inadequately rated organisations. Hope it works if not click on inadequate tab and the list is there
Free speech isn't some form of Tourettes where you HAVE to say EVERYTHING that can be said. Just because it insults the small amount of bad guys, we shouldn't forget that it will also upset the large amount of Muslim good guys to see their prophet insulted on the front page of every paper. These are the people we have to take with us if we have any chance of getting out of the mess that mass immigration and multiculturalism has left us in,. It would suit the terrorists just fine if there was division between "us" and "them"
Take these good guys where exactly? Because if we do what you suggest and not publish, it's not us taking them anywhere but them getting us in exactly the position the terrorists want i.e. agreeing to abide by Islamic law.
We'll de facto have been turned into Muslims if we're going to follow Islamic rules.
Its not following Islamic rules to keep people you need on side, on side
Moderate muslims, probably even non practicing muslims will be less receptive to integration if we are pissing off their family and friends.I am not saying there should be a law against anything we should just use a bit of common sense.
If the large mass of non-terrorist Muslims you're talking about would side with the terrorists because of a cartoon, then they are certainly not "good guys". We all need to accept in a free society that we will see things that mock and criticise our dearest beliefs. We shouldn't appease a group who want to opt out of that, under the implicit threat they might not integrate with society as a result.
All that is needed is for Muslims to say that, despite not liking others drawing Mohammed, even being offended by it, they accept that others are free to do so and there is nothing Muslims can do about it. That is all that is needed for them to integrate.
It is the fact that they (or a significant proportion of them) seem unable to accept that they have to live with things they don't like which is the problem. If you demand tolerance of others, you also have to give it. That mental leap seems too hard for some Muslims. That has to change.
Sounds like the Hospital has gone full cycle, and is back where it started after a short improvement.
Not good for private or public if we are honest.
Are you joking it is the only hospital so bad it is ranked as inadequate by CQC.
21 inadequate organisations are ranked inadequate in total out of 340.
All 21 are private sector.
No NHS run organisations are ranked inadequate.
Read the report and stop trying to defend the indefencible FFS
Why was it privatised?
Financial problems after introduction of new tariffs. There was not a clinical issue as I recall. Indeed it was punished for being cheap...
"Cambridgeshire PCT calculated that because Hinchingbrooke had previously provided services at below average cost, if the new PbR national tariff were to be applied and contracts remained unchanged, the total extra cost to the PCT (and benefit to Hinchingbrooke) would have been £13m a year. Across the NHS as a whole, of course, with many trusts running with costs above the new tariff, this would tend to equal out: but Cambridgeshire PCT still faced this local problem. In theory the transition to the new tariff was supposed to be facilitated by a system of Transitional Charges. But instead the SHA stepped in, and imposed excessive penalty payments by the Trust to the Department of Health, totalling a staggering £25.6 million over two years. So HHCT was obliged to pay out the equivalent of two full years of the expected extra income, while receiving next to nothing in return.
Meanwhile the Trust also saw its actual contracts with the PCT whittled away, as the PCT attempted to reduce their referrals to the Trust to match the previous budget, at the new rate. So HHCT lost out both ways round: a cash penalty, up front, PLUS a loss of referrals and long-term income. This was a heavy price to bear for being a low cost provider."
Sounds like the Hospital has gone full cycle, and is back where it started after a short improvement.
Not good for private or public if we are honest.
Are you joking it is the only hospital so bad it is ranked as inadequate by CQC.
21 inadequate organisations are ranked inadequate in total out of 340.
All 21 are private sector.
No NHS run organisations are ranked inadequate.
Read the report and stop trying to defend the indefencible FFS
My local hospital - so I would like to think I do know what I'm talking about. The 'payment by results' system and the punitive tariff for emergency care meant that this contract was never workable. I don't think that any political party can take any credit (or criticism) for this - it was always doomed to fail.
If a motivated private sector provider was unable to make this work, just think how much money is going to be guzzled by the public sector organisation moving in to save NHS England's face. The unions are going to have a field day.
Sounds like the Hospital has gone full cycle, and is back where it started after a short improvement.
Not good for private or public if we are honest.
Are you joking it is the only hospital so bad it is ranked as inadequate by CQC.
21 inadequate organisations are ranked inadequate in total out of 340.
All 21 are private sector.
No NHS run organisations are ranked inadequate.
Read the report and stop trying to defend the indefencible FFS
Why was it privatised?
Financial problems after introduction of new tariffs. There was not a clinical issue as I recall.
"Cambridgeshire PCT calculated that because Hinchingbrooke had previously provided services at below average cost, if the new PbR national tariff were to be applied and contracts remained unchanged, the total extra cost to the PCT (and benefit to Hinchingbrooke) would have been £13m a year. Across the NHS as a whole, of course, with many trusts running with costs above the new tariff, this would tend to equal out: but Cambridgeshire PCT still faced this local problem. In theory the transition to the new tariff was supposed to be facilitated by a system of Transitional Charges. But instead the SHA stepped in, and imposed excessive penalty payments by the Trust to the Department of Health, totalling a staggering £25.6 million over two years. So HHCT was obliged to pay out the equivalent of two full years of the expected extra income, while receiving next to nothing in return.
Meanwhile the Trust also saw its actual contracts with the PCT whittled away, as the PCT attempted to reduce their referrals to the Trust to match the previous budget, at the new rate. So HHCT lost out both ways round: a cash penalty, up front, PLUS a loss of referrals and long-term income. This was a heavy price to bear for being a low cost provider."
Sounds like the Hospital has gone full cycle, and is back where it started after a short improvement.
Not good for private or public if we are honest.
Are you joking it is the only hospital so bad it is ranked as inadequate by CQC.
21 inadequate organisations are ranked inadequate in total out of 340.
All 21 are private sector.
No NHS run organisations are ranked inadequate.
Read the report and stop trying to defend the indefencible FFS
Why was it privatised?
Financial problems after introduction of new tariffs. There was not a clinical issue as I recall.
"Cambridgeshire PCT calculated that because Hinchingbrooke had previously provided services at below average cost, if the new PbR national tariff were to be applied and contracts remained unchanged, the total extra cost to the PCT (and benefit to Hinchingbrooke) would have been £13m a year. Across the NHS as a whole, of course, with many trusts running with costs above the new tariff, this would tend to equal out: but Cambridgeshire PCT still faced this local problem. In theory the transition to the new tariff was supposed to be facilitated by a system of Transitional Charges. But instead the SHA stepped in, and imposed excessive penalty payments by the Trust to the Department of Health, totalling a staggering £25.6 million over two years. So HHCT was obliged to pay out the equivalent of two full years of the expected extra income, while receiving next to nothing in return.
Meanwhile the Trust also saw its actual contracts with the PCT whittled away, as the PCT attempted to reduce their referrals to the Trust to match the previous budget, at the new rate. So HHCT lost out both ways round: a cash penalty, up front, PLUS a loss of referrals and long-term income. This was a heavy price to bear for being a low cost provider."
Free speech isn't some form of Tourettes where you HAVE to say EVERYTHING that can be said. Just because it insults the small amount of bad guys, we shouldn't forget that it will also upset the large amount of Muslim good guys to see their prophet insulted on the front page of every paper. These are the people we have to take with us if we have any chance of getting out of the mess that mass immigration and multiculturalism has left us in,. It would suit the terrorists just fine if there was division between "us" and "them"
Take these good guys where exactly? Because if we do what you suggest and not publish, it's not us taking them anywhere but them getting us in exactly the position the terrorists want i.e. agreeing to abide by Islamic law.
We'll de facto have been turned into Muslims if we're going to follow Islamic rules.
Its not following Islamic rules to keep people you need on side, on side
Moderate muslims, probably even non practicing muslims will be less receptive to integration if we are pissing off their family and friends.I am not saying there should be a law against anything we should just use a bit of common sense.
If the large mass of non-terrorist Muslims you're talking about would side with the terrorists because of a cartoon, then they are certainly not "good guys". We all need to accept in a free society that we will see things that mock and criticise our dearest beliefs. We shouldn't appease a group who want to opt out of that, under the implicit threat they might not integrate with society as a result.
All that is needed is for Muslims to say that, despite not liking others drawing Mohammed, even being offended by it, they accept that others are free to do so and there is nothing Muslims can do about it. That is all that is needed for them to integrate.
It is the fact that they (or a significant proportion of them) seem unable to accept that they have to live with things they don't like which is the problem. If you demand tolerance of others, you also have to give it. That mental leap seems too hard for some Muslims. That has to change.
Its not just the right to free speech that needs to be accepted, but also the equality of all religions (and none), equality of women and of equal rights for LBGT people.
Sounds like the Hospital has gone full cycle, and is back where it started after a short improvement.
Not good for private or public if we are honest.
Are you joking it is the only hospital so bad it is ranked as inadequate by CQC.
21 inadequate organisations are ranked inadequate in total out of 340.
All 21 are private sector.
No NHS run organisations are ranked inadequate.
Read the report and stop trying to defend the indefencible FFS
Why was it privatised?
Financial problems after introduction of new tariffs. There was not a clinical issue as I recall.
"Cambridgeshire PCT calculated that because Hinchingbrooke had previously provided services at below average cost, if the new PbR national tariff were to be applied and contracts remained unchanged, the total extra cost to the PCT (and benefit to Hinchingbrooke) would have been £13m a year. Across the NHS as a whole, of course, with many trusts running with costs above the new tariff, this would tend to equal out: but Cambridgeshire PCT still faced this local problem. In theory the transition to the new tariff was supposed to be facilitated by a system of Transitional Charges. But instead the SHA stepped in, and imposed excessive penalty payments by the Trust to the Department of Health, totalling a staggering £25.6 million over two years. So HHCT was obliged to pay out the equivalent of two full years of the expected extra income, while receiving next to nothing in return.
Meanwhile the Trust also saw its actual contracts with the PCT whittled away, as the PCT attempted to reduce their referrals to the Trust to match the previous budget, at the new rate. So HHCT lost out both ways round: a cash penalty, up front, PLUS a loss of referrals and long-term income. This was a heavy price to bear for being a low cost provider."
Sounds like the Hospital has gone full cycle, and is back where it started after a short improvement.
Not good for private or public if we are honest.
Are you joking it is the only hospital so bad it is ranked as inadequate by CQC.
21 inadequate organisations are ranked inadequate in total out of 340.
All 21 are private sector.
No NHS run organisations are ranked inadequate.
Read the report and stop trying to defend the indefencible FFS
My local hospital - so I would like to think I do know what I'm talking about. The 'payment by results' system and the punitive tariff for emergency care meant that this contract was never workable. I don't think that any political party can take any credit (or criticism) for this - it was always doomed to fail.
If a motivated private sector provider was unable to make this work, just think how much money is going too be guzzled by the public sector organisation moving in to save NHS England's face. The unions are going to have a field day.
The same system i have been posting about for months that is bankrupting the whole acute sector is the primary cause of the Circle financial problems.
All Acute Trusts have the same pressures and unfair system.
No other Acute provider is rated inadequate for quality overall though is it? Special measures. Safety, A&E, Leadership,care, medical care all inadequate.
What doesn't seem to ever get much of a mentioned when it comes to cartoons of Muhammad,
a) the Quran doesn't say anything about depicting Muhammad and b) many Shia Muslims happily have pictures of their prophet.
Yebbut most (Sunni) jihadists don't regard Shias as Muslim!
Well yes. I have a friend who has had death threats for exactly that reason. But I think again the media are not explaining this very well, in the same way the Quran doesn't deem that women must appear in public covered head to toe, that is a "interpretation" by one branch of Islam.
Regarding health care, my daughter here in the US, and my sister in law in the UK both required gall bladder surgery last year at almost the same time.
My daughter (after some annoying delays as she had Obamacare at the time, luckily now she doesn't) simply sat with the practice manager and they settled on a date which suited her convenience.
By contrast my sister in law sat and waited for about 6 weeks until the NHS told her where and when. She had zero input as to scheduling or location.
That's basically the difference between the NHS and coverage here - here the hospitals, doctors, imaging companies and drug stores appreciate your business and know you have a choice, and they will go the extra mile. The NHS is run for the benefit of those who work in it, not the consumer, who they know has no choice so don't feel they need to provide a service.
Indy has 'The Truth about the Sex Scandal that brought down Roger Bird' on its front page.
It also says 'Norwegian Christians did not have to apologise for Brevic...'
Nor should they. Anders Breivik's relationship with Christianity is outlined here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik#Religious_and_political_views What is described here is a cultural preference, nothing more. It would appear a far greater passion was his membership of freemasonry I would say -perhaps those of the apron wearing persuasion should apologise.
@bigjohnowls "No other Acute provider is rated inadequate for quality overall though is it? Special measures. Safety, A&E, Leadership,care, medical care all inadequate. " Be careful, or our fundamentalist right wingers will be searching Ebay for Kalashnikovs to put an end to your blasphemy of the free market.
Take these good guys where exactly? Because if we do what you suggest and not publish, it's not us taking them anywhere but them getting us in exactly the position the terrorists want i.e. agreeing to abide by Islamic law.
We'll de facto have been turned into Muslims if we're going to follow Islamic rules.
Its not following Islamic rules to keep people you need on side, on side
Moderate muslims, probably even non practicing muslims will be less receptive to integration if we are pissing off their family and friends.I am not saying there should be a law against anything we should just use a bit of common sense.
If the large mass of non-terrorist Muslims you're talking about would side with the terrorists because of a cartoon, then they are certainly not "good guys". We all need to accept in a free society that we will see things that mock and criticise our dearest beliefs. We shouldn't appease a group who want to opt out of that, under the implicit threat they might not integrate with society as a result.
All that is needed is for Muslims to say that, despite not liking others drawing Mohammed, even being offended by it, they accept that others are free to do so and there is nothing Muslims can do about it. That is all that is needed for them to integrate.
It is the fact that they (or a significant proportion of them) seem unable to accept that they have to live with things they don't like which is the problem. If you demand tolerance of others, you also have to give it. That mental leap seems too hard for some Muslims. That has to change.
Its not just the right to free speech that needs to be accepted, but also the equality of all religions (and none), equality of women and of equal rights for LBGT people.
I agree. I had drafted that carelessly. I was thinking only about free speech. I would add to your list that they need to stop teaching hatred of Jews: it is wrong to have people teaching that Jews are like apes and pigs, for instance. We've seen today where that leads. And they need to understand that people are free not to be religious, including those who may have been raised as Muslims. Essentially, their mental cultural furniture needs to be that of the Western world not that of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Algeria.
Regarding health care, my daughter here in the US, and my sister in law in the UK both required gall bladder surgery last year at almost the same time.
My daughter (after some annoying delays as she had Obamacare at the time, luckily now she doesn't) simply sat with the practice manager and they settled on a date which suited her convenience.
By contrast my sister in law sat and waited for about 6 weeks until the NHS told her where and when. She had zero input as to scheduling or location.
That's basically the difference between the NHS and coverage here - here the hospitals, doctors, imaging companies and drug stores appreciate your business and know you have a choice, and they will go the extra mile. The NHS is run for the benefit of those who work in it, not the consumer, who they know has no choice so don't feel they need to provide a service.
Hospital scandals are not unique to the UK or NHS:
Regarding health care, my daughter here in the US, and my sister in law in the UK both required gall bladder surgery last year at almost the same time.
My daughter (after some annoying delays as she had Obamacare at the time, luckily now she doesn't) simply sat with the practice manager and they settled on a date which suited her convenience.
By contrast my sister in law sat and waited for about 6 weeks until the NHS told her where and when. She had zero input as to scheduling or location.
That's basically the difference between the NHS and coverage here - here the hospitals, doctors, imaging companies and drug stores appreciate your business and know you have a choice, and they will go the extra mile. The NHS is run for the benefit of those who work in it, not the consumer, who they know has no choice so don't feel they need to provide a service.
US has the most expensive healthcare system on the planet. The NHS is one of the most cost effective.
Free speech isn't some form of Tourettes where you HAVE to say EVERYTHING that can be said. Just because it insults the small amount of bad guys, we shouldn't forget that it will also upset the large amount of Muslim good guys to see their prophet insulted on the front page of every paper. These are the people we have to take with us if we have any chance of getting out of the mess that mass immigration and multiculturalism has left us in,. It would suit the terrorists just fine if there was division between "us" and "them"
Take these good guys where exactly? Because if we do what you suggest and not publish, it's not us taking them anywhere but them getting us in exactly the position the terrorists want i.e. agreeing to abide by Islamic law.
We'll de facto have been turned into Muslims if we're going to follow Islamic rules.
Its not following Islamic rules to keep people you need on side, on side
Moderate muslims, probably even non practicing muslims will be less receptive to integration if we are pissing off their family and friends.I am not saying there should be a law against anything we should just use a bit of common sense.
If the large mass of non-terrorist Muslims you're talking about would side with the terrorists because of a cartoon, then they are certainly not "good guys". We all need to accept in a free society that we will see things that mock and criticise our dearest beliefs. We shouldn't appease a group who want to opt out of that, under the implicit threat they might not integrate with society as a result.
All that is needed is for Muslims to say that, despite not liking others drawing Mohammed, even being offended by it, they accept that others are free to do so and there is nothing Muslims can do about it. That is all that is needed for them to integrate.
It is the fact that they (or a significant proportion of them) seem unable to accept that they have to live with things they don't like which is the problem. If you demand tolerance of others, you also have to give it. That mental leap seems too hard for some Muslims. That has to change.
Another post bang on the money. Fantastically well put.
You've been absolutely staunch on this Cyclefree - can't commend you enough.
Free speech isn't some form of Tourettes where you HAVE to say EVERYTHING that can be said. Just because it insults the small amount of bad guys, we shouldn't forget that it will also upset the large amount of Muslim good guys to see their prophet insulted on the front page of every paper. These are the people we have to take with us if we have any chance of getting out of the mess that mass immigration and multiculturalism has left us in,. It would suit the terrorists just fine if there was division between "us" and "them"
Take these good guys where exactly? Because if we do what you suggest and not publish, it's not us taking them anywhere but them getting us in exactly the position the terrorists want i.e. agreeing to abide by Islamic law.
We'll de facto have been turned into Muslims if we're going to follow Islamic rules.
Its not following Islamic rules to keep people you need on side, on side
Moderate muslims, probably even non practicing muslims will be less receptive to integration if we are pissing off their family and friends.I am not saying there should be a law against anything we should just use a bit of common sense.
If the large mass of non-terrorist Muslims you're talking about would side with the terrorists because of a cartoon, then they are certainly not "good guys". We all need to accept in a free society that we will see things that mock and criticise our dearest beliefs. We shouldn't appease a group who want to opt out of that, under the implicit threat they might not integrate with society as a result.
All that is needed is for Muslims to say that, despite not liking others drawing Mohammed, even being offended by it, they accept that others are free to do so and there is nothing Muslims can do about it. That is all that is needed for them to integrate.
It is the fact that they (or a significant proportion of them) seem unable to accept that they have to live with things they don't like which is the problem. If you demand tolerance of others, you also have to give it. That mental leap seems too hard for some Muslims. That has to change.
Another post bang on the money. Fantastically well put.
You've been absolutely staunch on this Cyclefree - can't commend you enough.
Regarding health care, my daughter here in the US, and my sister in law in the UK both required gall bladder surgery last year at almost the same time.
My daughter (after some annoying delays as she had Obamacare at the time, luckily now she doesn't) simply sat with the practice manager and they settled on a date which suited her convenience.
By contrast my sister in law sat and waited for about 6 weeks until the NHS told her where and when. She had zero input as to scheduling or location.
That's basically the difference between the NHS and coverage here - here the hospitals, doctors, imaging companies and drug stores appreciate your business and know you have a choice, and they will go the extra mile. The NHS is run for the benefit of those who work in it, not the consumer, who they know has no choice so don't feel they need to provide a service.
Hospital scandals are not unique to the UK or NHS:
Regarding health care, my daughter here in the US, and my sister in law in the UK both required gall bladder surgery last year at almost the same time.
My daughter (after some annoying delays as she had Obamacare at the time, luckily now she doesn't) simply sat with the practice manager and they settled on a date which suited her convenience.
By contrast my sister in law sat and waited for about 6 weeks until the NHS told her where and when. She had zero input as to scheduling or location.
That's basically the difference between the NHS and coverage here - here the hospitals, doctors, imaging companies and drug stores appreciate your business and know you have a choice, and they will go the extra mile. The NHS is run for the benefit of those who work in it, not the consumer, who they know has no choice so don't feel they need to provide a service.
US has the most expensive healthcare system on the planet. The NHS is one of the most cost effective.
I think you have to define cost-effective. If it means you get crap care but it's cheap I suspect it's not an argument you want to make.
What doesn't seem to ever get much of a mentioned when it comes to cartoons of Muhammad,
a) the Quran doesn't say anything about depicting Muhammad and b) many Shia Muslims happily have pictures of their prophet.
Yebbut most (Sunni) jihadists don't regard Shias as Muslim!
Well yes. I have a friend who has had death threats for exactly that reason. But I think again the media are not explaining this very well, in the same way the Quran doesn't deem that women must appear in public covered head to toe, that is a "interpretation" by one branch of Islam.
They DAREN'T explain it, because we're on the wrong side! We support the Sunni Whahabi nutcase tendency in Syria, Libya etc., who go around murdering Christians and Shia and destroying their Mosques. We are hand in glove with the world's major terrorism sponsors Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Our big bogeyman is Iran (Shia) who despite their ubdoubted fundamentalism, have not actually invaded another country since the mad Mullahs took over.
@bigjohnowls "No other Acute provider is rated inadequate for quality overall though is it? Special measures. Safety, A&E, Leadership,care, medical care all inadequate. " Be careful, or our fundamentalist right wingers will be searching Ebay for Kalashnikovs to put an end to your blasphemy of the free market.
I really don't think think you can make party political points out of this - both Labour & Coalition governments have been following this system for years, with a bit of tinkering at the edges.
As a GP, I have despaired at the false markets that have emerged - patients fall into the gaps that are created and far too much GP's time is wasted in trying to help patients negotiate the most complex systems.
That's basically the difference between the NHS and coverage here - here the hospitals, doctors, imaging companies and drug stores appreciate your business and know you have a choice, and they will go the extra mile. The NHS is run for the benefit of those who work in it, not the consumer, who they know has no choice so don't feel they need to provide a service.
Yes which is why the NHS can never be fixed. It will just suck in more and more of the GDP of the country until one day the country wakes up to the foolishness of this religion. In an age of secularism in this country, odd that we have this monument to the god of socialism.
@Blofelds_Cat I am neither attacking or defending any party. My point is that using "market forces" as a way of making efficiencies, can in certain circumstances be sub-optimal. To claim otherwise you either have to be blinkered, or lying.
It is common to all extremists that it's their way or the highway.
It's not confined to muslims either. Some years back an extremist christian group started assassinating abortion clinic doctors in Florida. They felt that christian doctrine justified this.
I'm a christian too but don't feel the immediate urge to kill those with whom I disagree.
Liar MPs @LiarMPs 1h1 hour ago The British give Abu Hamza a free house, generous welfare payments & even Police protection. The Americans threw his ass in jail FOR LIFE!
Regarding health care, my daughter here in the US, and my sister in law in the UK both required gall bladder surgery last year at almost the same time.
My daughter (after some annoying delays as she had Obamacare at the time, luckily now she doesn't) simply sat with the practice manager and they settled on a date which suited her convenience.
By contrast my sister in law sat and waited for about 6 weeks until the NHS told her where and when. She had zero input as to scheduling or location.
That's basically the difference between the NHS and coverage here - here the hospitals, doctors, imaging companies and drug stores appreciate your business and know you have a choice, and they will go the extra mile. The NHS is run for the benefit of those who work in it, not the consumer, who they know has no choice so don't feel they need to provide a service.
Hospital scandals are not unique to the UK or NHS:
What doesn't seem to ever get much of a mentioned when it comes to cartoons of Muhammad,
a) the Quran doesn't say anything about depicting Muhammad and b) many Shia Muslims happily have pictures of their prophet.
Yebbut most (Sunni) jihadists don't regard Shias as Muslim!
Well yes. I have a friend who has had death threats for exactly that reason. But I think again the media are not explaining this very well, in the same way the Quran doesn't deem that women must appear in public covered head to toe, that is a "interpretation" by one branch of Islam.
They DAREN'T explain it, because we're on the wrong side! We support the Sunni Whahabi nutcase tendency in Syria, Libya etc., who go around murdering Christians and Shia and destroying their Mosques. We are hand in glove with the world's major terrorism sponsors Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Our big bogeyman is Iran (Shia) who despite their ubdoubted fundamentalism, have not actually invaded another country since the mad Mullahs took over.
Depressing item on Newsnight now about the fear felt by France's Jewish population. A direct consequence of the growth of anti-semitism linked to the Muslim population.
What a disgrace - in the country which first emancipated Jews and gave them full civil rights.
"Those who committed these acts, these fanatics, have nothing to do with the Muslim faith."
Said Cnut, as the waters of World War 3 lapped around his dick.
Actually, the whole point of the King Canute story is that he wanted to show his subjects he could NOT hold back the tide!
Fair enough. My bad. But Hollande, waht a fcukign cnut. Leaders (so-called) cannot carry on this ridiculous charade. The gap between what they are saying what is happening is unspannable - may they fall in the chasm.
What doesn't seem to ever get much of a mentioned when it comes to cartoons of Muhammad,
a) the Quran doesn't say anything about depicting Muhammad and b) many Shia Muslims happily have pictures of their prophet.
Yebbut most (Sunni) jihadists don't regard Shias as Muslim!
Well yes. I have a friend who has had death threats for exactly that reason. But I think again the media are not explaining this very well, in the same way the Quran doesn't deem that women must appear in public covered head to toe, that is a "interpretation" by one branch of Islam.
They DAREN'T explain it, because we're on the wrong side! We support the Sunni Whahabi nutcase tendency in Syria, Libya etc., who go around murdering Christians and Shia and destroying their Mosques. We are hand in glove with the world's major terrorism sponsors Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Our big bogeyman is Iran (Shia) who despite their ubdoubted fundamentalism, have not actually invaded another country since the mad Mullahs took over.
@Blofelds_Cat I am neither attacking or defending any party. My point is that using "market forces" as a way of making efficiencies, can in certain circumstances be sub-optimal. To claim otherwise you either have to be blinkered, or lying.
@TCPoliticalBetting Worship the dollar man, worship it. Oddly, if you stop and consider it, the really valuable stuff in life you can't put a price on. (though the true fundamentalists try)
Regarding health care, my daughter here in the US, and my sister in law in the UK both required gall bladder surgery last year at almost the same time.
My daughter (after some annoying delays as she had Obamacare at the time, luckily now she doesn't) simply sat with the practice manager and they settled on a date which suited her convenience.
By contrast my sister in law sat and waited for about 6 weeks until the NHS told her where and when. She had zero input as to scheduling or location.
That's basically the difference between the NHS and coverage here - here the hospitals, doctors, imaging companies and drug stores appreciate your business and know you have a choice, and they will go the extra mile. The NHS is run for the benefit of those who work in it, not the consumer, who they know has no choice so don't feel they need to provide a service.
Hospital scandals are not unique to the UK or NHS:
"By the way, I applaud the decision of the British press not to publish the cartoons. I have kept away from this topic, knowing how the rabid right will react. So I simply remark: well done to our media. Spot bloody on."
It's certainly hard to keep up. Last week we had a thread on whether 'chinks' was an acceptable word and a footballer was banned for a clumsy line on twitter.
This week the likes of David Aaronovitch are crucifying our national newspapers for choosing not to print some gratuitously offensive cartoons.
Could someone please make the rules clearer?
Gratuitous offense lobbied in the direction of those who want control what we think and say is exactly what is needed now and will keep on being needed until those who try and control what we may think and say slink away, never to return.
Or - as the Duke of Wellington put it - "Publish and be damned!"
Freedom of speech from the 16th century onwards was not won, slowly, against much opposition and with many setbacks, by the likes of the Audreyannes of this world but by the scabrous, the scatological, the rude, the insulting, the satirical, the persistent and, above all, the brave.
I think your post throughout this week have been outstanding, it was ashame we didn't get a chance to chat at the pb meet.
@bigjohnowls "No other Acute provider is rated inadequate for quality overall though is it? Special measures. Safety, A&E, Leadership,care, medical care all inadequate. " Be careful, or our fundamentalist right wingers will be searching Ebay for Kalashnikovs to put an end to your blasphemy of the free market.
I really don't think think you can make party political points out of this - both Labour & Coalition governments have been following this system for years, with a bit of tinkering at the edges.
As a GP, I have despaired at the false markets that have been emerged - patients fall into the gaps that are created and far too much GP's time is wasted in trying to help patients negotiate the most complex systems.
Well i agree with that.
Milburn was one of the first architect of the competition although GP Funholding calamity predates that.
I am known as a leftie on here but i know lab are culpable in a lot of this but the Lansley reforms were the final straw for me particularly the 30% tariff for additional ED patients above the 2010 outturn.
Most Acute providers would similarly love to exit emergency care as it is bankrupting them but decide to soldier on rather than cutting and running.
I am a supporter of the NHS before being a Lab supporter the former is much more important but really do believe the Tories cannot be trusted on the NHS
@Blofelds_Cat I am neither attacking or defending any party. My point is that using "market forces" as a way of making efficiencies, can in certain circumstances be sub-optimal. To claim otherwise you either have to be blinkered, or lying.
Care to name a circumstance?
Anything that needs a huge investment in infrastructure to acheive like a railway or coal mine which, if left to market forces may get shut down and dismantled if it becomes unviable for a period, resulting in massive costs to rebuild it when needed again, far exceeding the cost of keeping it open at a small loss.
@Tim_B Public transport as an example? Privatizing it means it is tailored for the benefit of the most profitable passengers, not those most in need. To counter this, we pay subsidies to keep those services going which distorts the "free market" Net result, people buy a car and clog up the roads
@Blofelds_Cat I am neither attacking or defending any party. My point is that using "market forces" as a way of making efficiencies, can in certain circumstances be sub-optimal. To claim otherwise you either have to be blinkered, or lying.
Care to name a circumstance?
Anything that needs a huge investment in infrastructure to acheive like a railway or coal mine which, if left to market forces may get shut down and dismantled if it becomes unviable for a period, resulting in massive costs to rebuild it when needed again, far exceeding the cost of keeping it open at a small loss.
I ask again, ignoring the spelling errors, - Care to name a circumstance?
@Blofelds_Cat I am neither attacking or defending any party. My point is that using "market forces" as a way of making efficiencies, can in certain circumstances be sub-optimal. To claim otherwise you either have to be blinkered, or lying.
Care to name a circumstance?
Anything that needs a huge investment in infrastructure to acheive like a railway or coal mine which, if left to market forces may get shut down and dismantled if it becomes unviable for a period, resulting in massive costs to rebuild it when needed again, far exceeding the cost of keeping it open at a small loss.
Witness the Chanel Tunnel - These projects though are few and far between. (NB the railways and coal mines were started with private capital but the logistics these days are far greater.)
However SOME projects are so vast that there has to be a method of allocating resources on a National - hence government - or Countywide scale. Other than that Government should butt out.
@bigjohnowls "No other Acute provider is rated inadequate for quality overall though is it? Special measures. Safety, A&E, Leadership,care, medical care all inadequate. " Be careful, or our fundamentalist right wingers will be searching Ebay for Kalashnikovs to put an end to your blasphemy of the free market.
I really don't think think you can make party political points out of this - both Labour & Coalition governments have been following this system for years, with a bit of tinkering at the edges.
As a GP, I have despaired at the false markets that have been emerged - patients fall into the gaps that are created and far too much GP's time is wasted in trying to help patients negotiate the most complex systems.
Well i agree with that.
Milburn was one of the first architect of the competition although GP Funholding calamity predates that.
I am known as a leftie on here but i know lab are culpable in a lot of this but the Lansley reforms were the final straw for me particularly the 30% tariff for additional ED patients above the 2010 outturn.
Most Acute providers would similarly love to exit emergency care as it is bankrupting them but decide to soldier on rather than cutting and running.
I am a supporter of the NHS before being a Lab supporter the former is much more important but really do believe the Tories cannot be trusted on the NHS
Using history as a measure, how many years of its existence has the NHS survived under Tory rule?
@Tim_B Public transport as an example? Privatizing it means it is tailored for the benefit of the most profitable passengers, not those most in need. To counter this, we pay subsidies to keep those services going which distorts the "free market" Net result, people buy a car and clog up the roads
You're making my case for me.
There is no public transport where I live. Net result, as you say, everyone has a car. Atlanta is much larger and more spread out than - say- London, even though the population is less.
Some years back there was a vote in Gwinnett County as to whether to extend MARTA (the Atlanta subway system) into the county. It was overwhelmingly rejected.
Take these good guys where exactly? Because if we do what you suggest and not publish, it's not us taking them anywhere but them getting us in exactly the position the terrorists want i.e. agreeing to abide by Islamic law.
We'll de facto have been turned into Muslims if we're going to follow Islamic rules.
Its not following Islamic rules to keep people you need on side, on side
Moderate muslims, probably even non practicing muslims will be less receptive to integration if we are pissing off their family and friends.I am not saying there should be a law against anything we should just use a bit of common sense.
If the large mass of non-terrorist Muslims you're talking about would side with the terrorists because of a cartoon, then they are certainly not "good guys". We all need to accept in a free society that we will see things that mock and criticise our dearest beliefs. We shouldn't appease a group who want to opt out of that, under the implicit threat they might not integrate with society as a result.
All that is needed is for Muslims to say that, despite not liking others drawing Mohammed, even being offended by it, they accept that others are free to do so and there is nothing Muslims can do about it. That is all that is needed for them to integrate.
It is the fact that they (or a significant proportion of them) seem unable to accept that they have to live with things they don't like which is the problem. If you demand tolerance of others, you also have to give it. That mental leap seems too hard for some Muslims. That has to change.
Another post bang on the money. Fantastically well put.
You've been absolutely staunch on this Cyclefree - can't commend you enough.
I feel strongly about it - as you might have guessed! I do not want the world my children will live their lives in to be a darker place with fewer freedoms than the ones I have enjoyed and benefited from.
Edmund Burke: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
And
"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little."
At the risk of sounding pompous, this is my "little".
@Tim_B Public transport as an example? Privatizing it means it is tailored for the benefit of the most profitable passengers, not those most in need. To counter this, we pay subsidies to keep those services going which distorts the "free market" Net result, people buy a car and clog up the roads
There are far, far more people using the trains now than ever did under British Rail. Although, despite being in complete contravention of the facts, it was a nice theory.
@bigjohnowls "No other Acute provider is rated inadequate for quality overall though is it? Special measures. Safety, A&E, Leadership,care, medical care all inadequate. " Be careful, or our fundamentalist right wingers will be searching Ebay for Kalashnikovs to put an end to your blasphemy of the free market.
I really don't think think you can make party political points out of this - both Labour & Coalition governments have been following this system for years, with a bit of tinkering at the edges.
As a GP, I have despaired at the false markets that have been emerged - patients fall into the gaps that are created and far too much GP's time is wasted in trying to help patients negotiate the most complex systems.
Well i agree with that.
Milburn was one of the first architect of the competition although GP Funholding calamity predates that.
I am known as a leftie on here but i know lab are culpable in a lot of this but the Lansley reforms were the final straw for me particularly the 30% tariff for additional ED patients above the 2010 outturn.
Most Acute providers would similarly love to exit emergency care as it is bankrupting them but decide to soldier on rather than cutting and running.
I am a supporter of the NHS before being a Lab supporter the former is much more important but really do believe the Tories cannot be trusted on the NHS
Using history as a measure, how many years of its existence has the NHS survived under Tory rule?
Survived Thatcher albeit with 12 month waits for operations i suppose.
Acute hospitals will not survive this winter without a bailout IMO and will certainly not survive a further year of the current restiction on A&E tariff at 30%
@Blofelds_Cat I am neither attacking or defending any party. My point is that using "market forces" as a way of making efficiencies, can in certain circumstances be sub-optimal. To claim otherwise you either have to be blinkered, or lying.
Care to name a circumstance?
Anything that needs a huge investment in infrastructure to acheive like a railway or coal mine which, if left to market forces may get shut down and dismantled if it becomes unviable for a period, resulting in massive costs to rebuild it when needed again, far exceeding the cost of keeping it open at a small loss.
The railways and coal mines were both private enterprises which got taken over by the government. Possibly not the best example.
Regarding health care, my daughter here in the US, and my sister in law in the UK both required gall bladder surgery last year at almost the same time.
My daughter (after some annoying delays as she had Obamacare at the time, luckily now she doesn't) simply sat with the practice manager and they settled on a date which suited her convenience.
By contrast my sister in law sat and waited for about 6 weeks until the NHS told her where and when. She had zero input as to scheduling or location.
That's basically the difference between the NHS and coverage here - here the hospitals, doctors, imaging companies and drug stores appreciate your business and know you have a choice, and they will go the extra mile. The NHS is run for the benefit of those who work in it, not the consumer, who they know has no choice so don't feel they need to provide a service.
Hospital scandals are not unique to the UK or NHS:
The US health care system has its issues, but it is responsive to its customers. Obamacare is the exception.
How could Private medicine help the suffering of the mentally ill in the USA?
Private health care is good at short discrete interventions such as elective surgery. It is bad at providing longterm care to an entire population. This is why outcomes for mental health, diabetes, infant deaths and life expectancy are famously poor in the USA. The average Briton lives 20 months longer than the average American, despite America spending twice as much on health care.
Take these good guys where exactly? Because if we do what you suggest and not publish, it's not us taking them anywhere but them getting us in exactly the position the terrorists want i.e. agreeing to abide by Islamic law.
We'll de facto have been turned into Muslims if we're going to follow Islamic rules.
...
...
All that is needed is for Muslims to say that, despite not liking others drawing Mohammed, even being offended by it, they accept that others are free to do so and there is nothing Muslims can do about it. That is all that is needed for them to integrate.
It is the fact that they (or a significant proportion of them) seem unable to accept that they have to live with things they don't like which is the problem. If you demand tolerance of others, you also have to give it. That mental leap seems too hard for some Muslims. That has to change.
Another post bang on the money. Fantastically well put.
You've been absolutely staunch on this Cyclefree - can't commend you enough.
Muslim leaders I read and hear are saying exactly that - ie there is nothing to justify the murder of people for taking the mickey out of Mohamed. My guess is thats a principle they have always held to. So we have hope.
Terrorists are not going to take much notice of anything except being shot dead. As we look at the quite appalling atrocities committed by ISIS zealots, mostly against other muslims, do we really think they care about muslims' views in Europe? They will probably relish our assertiveness and we will not stop them except by killing them, but what cyclefree says might just help all of us in Europe live together.
Regarding health care, my daughter here in the US, and my sister in law in the UK both required gall bladder surgery last year at almost the same time.
My daughter (after some annoying delays as she had Obamacare at the time, luckily now she doesn't) simply sat with the practice manager and they settled on a date which suited her convenience.
By contrast my sister in law sat and waited for about 6 weeks until the NHS told her where and when. She had zero input as to scheduling or location.
That's basically the difference between the NHS and coverage here - here the hospitals, doctors, imaging companies and drug stores appreciate your business and know you have a choice, and they will go the extra mile. The NHS is run for the benefit of those who work in it, not the consumer, who they know has no choice so don't feel they need to provide a service.
US has the most expensive healthcare system on the planet. The NHS is one of the most cost effective.
I think you have to define cost-effective. If it means you get crap care but it's cheap I suspect it's not an argument you want to make.
Do remember that in the UK you have the choice to pay for health insurance - and a lot of people do. It's just that we also have universal healthcare coverage, and it costs (relatively speaking) very little.
The US government spends more on healthcare - as a percentage of GDP - than the British government does. And we get universal coverage for our more modest spend.
@Blofelds_Cat I am neither attacking or defending any party. My point is that using "market forces" as a way of making efficiencies, can in certain circumstances be sub-optimal. To claim otherwise you either have to be blinkered, or lying.
Care to name a circumstance?
Anything that needs a huge investment in infrastructure to acheive like a railway or coal mine which, if left to market forces may get shut down and dismantled if it becomes unviable for a period, resulting in massive costs to rebuild it when needed again, far exceeding the cost of keeping it open at a small loss.
I ask again, ignoring the spelling errors, - Care to name a circumstance?
Alas, Tim, I think there are many circumstances in which markets fail - indeed, they do for whole categories of systems or circumstances. To name a few: 1. where information imbalances exist 2. natural monopolies 3. public goods and public bads, particularly where cost and benefit apportioning are difficult and freeloading cannot be controlled 4. where moral hazard comes into play 5. where the system is game-able between different players both on the supply and the demand side 6. where time lags exist between a demand arising and supply capacity increasing 7. where transaction costs become material
A lot of these apply to various aspects of supplying healthcare. That's not to say that markets don't have their uses, even in the supply of healthcare.
I share your distrust of those who argue the NHS provides more cost effective healthcare. From whose viewpoint and based on what definition of effective? Certainly not from the person who has just been rationed out of care.
Regarding health care, my daughter here in the US, and my sister in law in the UK both required gall bladder surgery last year at almost the same time.
My daughter (after some annoying delays as she had Obamacare at the time, luckily now she doesn't) simply sat with the practice manager and they settled on a date which suited her convenience.
By contrast my sister in law sat and waited for about 6 weeks until the NHS told her where and when. She had zero input as to scheduling or location.
That's basically the difference between the NHS and coverage here - here the hospitals, doctors, imaging companies and drug stores appreciate your business and know you have a choice, and they will go the extra mile. The NHS is run for the benefit of those who work in it, not the consumer, who they know has no choice so don't feel they need to provide a service.
Hospital scandals are not unique to the UK or NHS:
The US health care system has its issues, but it is responsive to its customers. Obamacare is the exception.
How could Private medicine help the suffering of the mentally ill in the USA?
Private health care is good at short discrete interventions such as elective surgery. It is bad at providing longterm care to an entire population. This is why outcomes for mental health, diabetes, infant deaths and life expectancy are famously poor in the USA. The average Briton lives 20 months longer than the average American, despite America spending twice as much on health care.
I have to be honest - I don't know much about the mental illness aspects of the US health care system, so cannot contribute to any discussion about it, other than to acknowledge that I know it is far short of what it needs to be.
Life expectancy here varies greatly based on race, location, and income.
23.07 AFP reports that a top official Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has threatened France with fresh attacks. Harith al-Nadhari is quoted in a video saying:
"It is better for you to stop your aggression against the Muslims, so perhaps you will live safely. If you refuse but to wage war, then wait for the glad tiding"
Regarding health care, my daughter here in the US, and my sister in law in the UK both required gall bladder surgery last year at almost the same time.
My daughter (after some annoying delays as she had Obamacare at the time, luckily now she doesn't) simply sat with the practice manager and they settled on a date which suited her convenience.
By contrast my sister in law sat and waited for about 6 weeks until the NHS told her where and when. She had zero input as to scheduling or location.
That's basically the difference between the NHS and coverage here - here the hospitals, doctors, imaging companies and drug stores appreciate your business and know you have a choice, and they will go the extra mile. The NHS is run for the benefit of those who work in it, not the consumer, who they know has no choice so don't feel they need to provide a service.
US has the most expensive healthcare system on the planet. The NHS is one of the most cost effective.
I think you have to define cost-effective. If it means you get crap care but it's cheap I suspect it's not an argument you want to make.
Do remember that in the UK you have the choice to pay for health insurance - and a lot of people do. It's just that we also have universal healthcare coverage, and it costs (relatively speaking) very little.
The US government spends more on healthcare - as a percentage of GDP - than the British government does. And we get universal coverage for our more modest spend.
The US government pays for VA healthcare, medicare, medicaid and the 'risk corridors' of Obamacare and that's it.
It does not pay for the vast majority of the nation's healthcare system.
Universal coverage - that covers a multitude of sins.
Regarding health care, my daughter here in the US, and my sister in law in the UK both required gall bladder surgery last year at almost the same time.
My daughter (after some annoying delays as she had Obamacare at the time, luckily now she doesn't) simply sat with the practice manager and they settled on a date which suited her convenience.
By contrast my sister in law sat and waited for about 6 weeks until the NHS told her where and when. She had zero input as to scheduling or location.
That's basically the difference between the NHS and coverage here - here the hospitals, doctors, imaging companies and drug stores appreciate your business and know you have a choice, and they will go the extra mile. The NHS is run for the benefit of those who work in it, not the consumer, who they know has no choice so don't feel they need to provide a service.
Hospital scandals are not unique to the UK or NHS:
The US health care system has its issues, but it is responsive to its customers. Obamacare is the exception.
How could Private medicine help the suffering of the mentally ill in the USA?
Private health care is good at short discrete interventions such as elective surgery. It is bad at providing longterm care to an entire population. This is why outcomes for mental health, diabetes, infant deaths and life expectancy are famously poor in the USA. The average Briton lives 20 months longer than the average American, despite America spending twice as much on health care.
I have to be honest - I don't know much about the mental illness aspects of the US health care system, so cannot contribute to any discussion about it, other than to acknowledge that I know it is far short of what it needs to be.
Life expectancy here varies greatly based on race, location, and income.
Regarding health care, my daughter here in the US, and my sister in law in the UK both required gall bladder surgery last year at almost the same time.
My daughter (after some annoying delays as she had Obamacare at the time, luckily now she doesn't) simply sat with the practice manager and they settled on a date which suited her convenience.
By contrast my sister in law sat and waited for about 6 weeks until the NHS told her where and when. She had zero input as to scheduling or location.
That's basically the difference between the NHS and coverage here - here the hospitals, doctors, imaging companies and drug stores appreciate your business and know you have a choice, and they will go the extra mile. The NHS is run for the benefit of those who work in it, not the consumer, who they know has no choice so don't feel they need to provide a service.
Hospital scandals are not unique to the UK or NHS:
The US health care system has its issues, but it is responsive to its customers. Obamacare is the exception.
How could Private medicine help the suffering of the mentally ill in the USA?
Private health care is good at short discrete interventions such as elective surgery. It is bad at providing longterm care to an entire population. This is why outcomes for mental health, diabetes, infant deaths and life expectancy are famously poor in the USA. The average Briton lives 20 months longer than the average American, despite America spending twice as much on health care.
I have to be honest - I don't know much about the mental illness aspects of the US health care system, so cannot contribute to any discussion about it, other than to acknowledge that I know it is far short of what it needs to be.
Life expectancy here varies greatly based on race, location, and income.
This was the reaction of the White House and French Jewish leaders in 2012 when Charlie Habdo printed those cartoons. I do not think at that time it was about press freedom. More like self publicity.
Nonetheless killing someone because they published a cartoon however reprehensible to virtually all Muslims cannot be justified. These nutters need to be found.
Here again, we come to discuss "rights". What would be the view of PBers if the Home Secretary allowed more comprehensive tapping ?
Here is an original declaration of intent to form the National Health Service
The health services of the country will be made available to all citizens. Everyone will contribute to the cost, and no one will be denied the attention, the treatment or the appliances he requires because he cannot afford them.
We propose to create a comprehensive health service covering the whole range of medical treatment from the general practitioner to the specialist, and from the hospital to convalescence and rehabilitation; and to introduce legislation for this purpose in the new Parliament.
The success of the service will depend on the skill and initiative of doctors, dentists, nurses and other professional people, and in its designing and operation there will be full scope for all the guidance they can give. Wide play must be given to the preferences and enterprise of individuals. Nothing will be done to destroy the close personal relationship between doctor and patient, nor to restrict the patient's free choice of doctor.
The whole service must be so designed that in each area its growth is helped and guided by the influence of a university. Through such a service the medical and allied professions will be enabled to serve the whole nation more effectively than they have yet been able to do. At the same time Medicine will be left free to develop along its own lines, and to achieve preventive as well as curative triumphs. Liberty is an essential condition of scientific progress.
The voluntary hospitals which have led the way in the development of hospital technique will remain free. They will play their part in the new service in friendly partnership with local authority hospitals.
Motherhood must be our special care. There must be a large increase of maternity beds and convalescent homes, and they must be provided in the right places. Mothers must be relieved of onerous duties which at such times so easily cause lasting injury to their health. The National Insurance Scheme will make financial provision for these needs. All proper arrangements, both voluntary and State-aided, must be made for the care of other young children in the family, in order that the energies of the male breadwinner or the kindness of neighbours and relations, which nevertheless must be the mainspring, should not be unduly burdened. Nursery schools and nurseries such as have grown up during the war should be encouraged. On the birth, the proper feeding and the healthy upbringing of a substantially increased number of children, depends the life of Britain and her enduring glory.
@Blofelds_Cat I am neither attacking or defending any party. My point is that using "market forces" as a way of making efficiencies, can in certain circumstances be sub-optimal. To claim otherwise you either have to be blinkered, or lying.
Care to name a circumstance?
Anything that needs a huge investment in infrastructure to acheive like a railway or coal mine which, if left to market forces may get shut down and dismantled if it becomes unviable for a period, resulting in massive costs to rebuild it when needed again, far exceeding the cost of keeping it open at a small loss.
I ask again, ignoring the spelling errors, - Care to name a circumstance?
Alas, Tim, I think there are many circumstances in which markets fail - indeed, they do for whole categories of systems or circumstances. To name a few: 1. where information imbalances exist 2. natural monopolies 3. public goods and public bads, particularly where cost and benefit apportioning are difficult and freeloading cannot be controlled 4. where moral hazard comes into play 5. where the system is game-able between different players both on the supply and the demand side 6. where time lags exist between a demand arising and supply capacity increasing 7. where transaction costs become material
A lot of these apply to various aspects of supplying healthcare. That's not to say that markets don't have their uses, even in the supply of healthcare.
I share your distrust of those who argue the NHS provides more cost effective healthcare. From whose viewpoint and based on what definition of effective? Certainly not from the person who has just been rationed out of care.
You limey bastard! I asked for a single circumstance, not for someone to run rings round me logically! :-)
I think 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 could apply to the NHS. 7 doesn't - cost is not a factor. Moral hazard is great - it can apply to anyone from a doctor or hospital administrator to an Idaho potato farmer.
I see the NHS is evil, and the only way to run a health service is in the private sector trolls are out in force tonight.
Still some good news to come in the NHS on Monday with a cull of useless treatments from the Cancer Drugs Fund. As taxpayers we should all be glad that this scheme designed entirely to divert profits to drug companies is being cut back.
Regarding health care, my daughter here in the US, and my sister in law in the UK both required gall bladder surgery last year at almost the same time.
My daughter (after some annoying delays as she had Obamacare at the time, luckily now she doesn't) simply sat with the practice manager and they settled on a date which suited her convenience.
By contrast my sister in law sat and waited for about 6 weeks until the NHS told her where and when. She had zero input as to scheduling or location.
That's basically the difference between the NHS and coverage here - here the hospitals, doctors, imaging companies and drug stores appreciate your business and know you have a choice, and they will go the extra mile. The NHS is run for the benefit of those who work in it, not the consumer, who they know has no choice so don't feel they need to provide a service.
Hospital scandals are not unique to the UK or NHS:
The US health care system has its issues, but it is responsive to its customers. Obamacare is the exception.
How could Private medicine help the suffering of the mentally ill in the USA?
Private health care is good at short discrete interventions such as elective surgery. It is bad at providing longterm care to an entire population. This is why outcomes for mental health, diabetes, infant deaths and life expectancy are famously poor in the USA. The average Briton lives 20 months longer than the average American, despite America spending twice as much on health care.
I have to be honest - I don't know much about the mental illness aspects of the US health care system, so cannot contribute to any discussion about it, other than to acknowledge that I know it is far short of what it needs to be.
Life expectancy here varies greatly based on race, location, and income.
Same here. But overall Britons live longer.
A significant portion of the medical expenses is spent on insurance premiums for protection against litigation.
I have to be honest - I don't know much about the mental illness aspects of the US health care system, so cannot contribute to any discussion about it, other than to acknowledge that I know it is far short of what it needs to be.
Life expectancy here varies greatly based on race, location, and income.
Same here. But overall Britons live longer.
And of course we spend only a half what the Americans do on health and get far better outcomes.
Comments
Dave is Frit according to that famous leftie on QT last night Mail columnist Julia Hartley-Brewer.
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Hinchingbrooke-patients-told-soil-Care-Quality/story-25832030-detail/story.html
Not good for private or public if we are honest.
21 inadequate organisations are ranked inadequate in total out of 340.
All 21 are private sector.
No NHS run organisations are ranked inadequate.
Read the report and stop trying to defend the indefencible FFS
But this time there's a wrinkle. Following the controversy over Jones paying Christie's expenses, and Christie awarding a contract to Jones' company, Christie is paying his own way for him and his son.
Full disclosure - Sunday is my birthday, and also my best friend's. He is not a football fan, so suggested a 4pm start for the party. Following my shocked look he said "OK, when does the game end?" So it's at 5.30pm at a Cuban restaurant that gets good reviews.
Jerry Jones said "He's part of our mojo." If that's what it takes, go for it.
But, of course, I am not a fan.
As Christie would say, "I'll close that bridge when I get to it."
The doctrine of it must be public sector only and the doctrine of private is better are both wrong.
As the NHS is a system based on the technology and medical practices of 40 or 50 years ago and the patient needs of 40 or 50 years ago it is hardly shocking that it isn't providing todays needs.
The public sector, the public, the Drs, Consultants and politicians need to accept that it could work better with radical changes to the way services are provided. If the NHS fails to evolve it will die.
I'd say that's a fail.
http://www.cqc.org.uk/search/services/all?f[0]=im_field_inspection_rating:3928&f[1]=latest_inspections:month
All that is needed is for Muslims to say that, despite not liking others drawing Mohammed, even being offended by it, they accept that others are free to do so and there is nothing Muslims can do about it. That is all that is needed for them to integrate.
It is the fact that they (or a significant proportion of them) seem unable to accept that they have to live with things they don't like which is the problem. If you demand tolerance of others, you also have to give it. That mental leap seems too hard for some Muslims. That has to change.
"Cambridgeshire PCT calculated that because Hinchingbrooke had previously provided services at below average cost, if the new PbR national tariff were to be applied and contracts remained unchanged, the total extra cost to the PCT (and benefit to Hinchingbrooke) would have been £13m a year. Across the NHS as a whole, of course, with many trusts running with costs above the new tariff, this would tend to equal out: but Cambridgeshire PCT still faced this local problem. In theory the transition to the new tariff was supposed to be facilitated by a system of Transitional Charges. But instead the SHA stepped in, and imposed excessive penalty payments by the Trust to the Department of Health, totalling a staggering £25.6 million over two years. So HHCT was obliged to pay out the equivalent of two full years of the expected extra income, while receiving next to nothing in return.
Meanwhile the Trust also saw its actual contracts with the PCT whittled away, as the PCT attempted to reduce their referrals to the Trust to match the previous budget, at the new rate. So HHCT lost out both ways round: a cash penalty, up front, PLUS a loss of referrals and long-term income. This was a heavy price to bear for being a low cost provider."
From: http://www.sochealth.co.uk/2014/09/09/behind-smoke-mirrors/
If a motivated private sector provider was unable to make this work, just think how much money is going to be guzzled by the public sector organisation moving in to save NHS England's face. The unions are going to have a field day.
a) the Quran doesn't say anything about depicting Muhammad and
b) many Shira Muslims happily have pictures of their prophet.
All Acute Trusts have the same pressures and unfair system.
No other Acute provider is rated inadequate for quality overall though is it? Special measures.
Safety, A&E, Leadership,care, medical care all inadequate.
My daughter (after some annoying delays as she had Obamacare at the time, luckily now she doesn't) simply sat with the practice manager and they settled on a date which suited her convenience.
By contrast my sister in law sat and waited for about 6 weeks until the NHS told her where and when. She had zero input as to scheduling or location.
That's basically the difference between the NHS and coverage here - here the hospitals, doctors, imaging companies and drug stores appreciate your business and know you have a choice, and they will go the extra mile. The NHS is run for the benefit of those who work in it, not the consumer, who they know has no choice so don't feel they need to provide a service.
"No other Acute provider is rated inadequate for quality overall though is it? Special measures.
Safety, A&E, Leadership,care, medical care all inadequate. "
Be careful, or our fundamentalist right wingers will be searching Ebay for Kalashnikovs to put an end to your blasphemy of the free market.
How do they treat those without insurance, or only basic cover?
And how much does your wonderful system cost?
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/23/politics/veterans-care-va-report/
Patient neglect, falsified waiting lists, financial irregularities, etc
You've been absolutely staunch on this Cyclefree - can't commend you enough.
I would also add an acceptance that religious and political differences should be resolved without physical force and intimidation.
Frank Furedi on how teaches have failed to challenge students appropriately:
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/paris-and-beyond-europe-is-at-war-with-itself/16435#.VLBYq8lFDqA
As a GP, I have despaired at the false markets that have emerged - patients fall into the gaps that are created and far too much GP's time is wasted in trying to help patients negotiate the most complex systems.
I am neither attacking or defending any party.
My point is that using "market forces" as a way of making efficiencies, can in certain circumstances be sub-optimal.
To claim otherwise you either have to be blinkered, or lying.
It's not confined to muslims either. Some years back an extremist christian group started assassinating abortion clinic doctors in Florida. They felt that christian doctrine justified this.
I'm a christian too but don't feel the immediate urge to kill those with whom I disagree.
Maybe I'm just not christian enough.
The British give Abu Hamza a free house, generous welfare payments & even Police protection.
The Americans threw his ass in jail FOR LIFE!
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/12/mental-health-system-crisis/7746535/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8028064.stm
What a disgrace - in the country which first emancipated Jews and gave them full civil rights.
Worship the dollar man, worship it.
Oddly, if you stop and consider it, the really valuable stuff in life you can't put a price on. (though the true fundamentalists try)
- sorry just couldn't resist.
The US health care system has its issues, but it is responsive to its customers. Obamacare is the exception.
Milburn was one of the first architect of the competition although GP Funholding calamity predates that.
I am known as a leftie on here but i know lab are culpable in a lot of this but the Lansley reforms were the final straw for me particularly the 30% tariff for additional ED patients above the 2010 outturn.
Most Acute providers would similarly love to exit emergency care as it is bankrupting them but decide to soldier on rather than cutting and running.
I am a supporter of the NHS before being a Lab supporter the former is much more important but really do believe the Tories cannot be trusted on the NHS
Public transport as an example?
Privatizing it means it is tailored for the benefit of the most profitable passengers, not those most in need.
To counter this, we pay subsidies to keep those services going which distorts the "free market"
Net result, people buy a car and clog up the roads
Bae currently 6 under par (3 shots ahead of anyone else)
Currently EVS with Stan James to lead after first round
Good odds in my eyes but make your own mind up
However SOME projects are so vast that there has to be a method of allocating resources on a National - hence government - or Countywide scale. Other than that Government should butt out.
http://www.newforestlibdems.org/
'Are you joking it is the only hospital so bad it is ranked as inadequate by CQC.
21 inadequate organisations are ranked inadequate in total out of 340.
All 21 are private sector.'
Could any hospital ever have a worse record than the NHS Mid Staffs ?
There is no public transport where I live. Net result, as you say, everyone has a car. Atlanta is much larger and more spread out than - say- London, even though the population is less.
Some years back there was a vote in Gwinnett County as to whether to extend MARTA (the Atlanta subway system) into the county. It was overwhelmingly rejected.
Edmund Burke: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
And
"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little."
At the risk of sounding pompous, this is my "little".
Good night all.
Miles and miles of five lane parking lots.
Acute hospitals will not survive this winter without a bailout IMO and will certainly not survive a further year of the current restiction on A&E tariff at 30%
Yes, the commuters, who the shareholders milk.
Private health care is good at short discrete interventions such as elective surgery. It is bad at providing longterm care to an entire population. This is why outcomes for mental health, diabetes, infant deaths and life expectancy are famously poor in the USA. The average Briton lives 20 months longer than the average American, despite America spending twice as much on health care.
Be very afraid.
Terrorists are not going to take much notice of anything except being shot dead. As we look at the quite appalling atrocities committed by ISIS zealots, mostly against other muslims, do we really think they care about muslims' views in Europe? They will probably relish our assertiveness and we will not stop them except by killing them, but what cyclefree says might just help all of us in Europe live together.
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/553308694256304129
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/553315386272514049
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/553321437076152321
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/553495040908333058
The US government spends more on healthcare - as a percentage of GDP - than the British government does. And we get universal coverage for our more modest spend.
1. where information imbalances exist
2. natural monopolies
3. public goods and public bads, particularly where cost and benefit apportioning are difficult and freeloading cannot be controlled
4. where moral hazard comes into play
5. where the system is game-able between different players both on the supply and the demand side
6. where time lags exist between a demand arising and supply capacity increasing
7. where transaction costs become material
A lot of these apply to various aspects of supplying healthcare. That's not to say that markets don't have their uses, even in the supply of healthcare.
I share your distrust of those who argue the NHS provides more cost effective healthcare. From whose viewpoint and based on what definition of effective? Certainly not from the person who has just been rationed out of care.
Life expectancy here varies greatly based on race, location, and income.
Harith al-Nadhari is quoted in a video saying:
"It is better for you to stop your aggression against the Muslims, so perhaps you will live safely. If you refuse but to wage war, then wait for the glad tiding"
It does not pay for the vast majority of the nation's healthcare system.
Universal coverage - that covers a multitude of sins.
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/french-jewish-leaders-condemn-release-of-new-mohammed-cartoons-1.465825
http://mashable.com/2015/01/08/white-house-jay-carney-charlie-hebdo/
Nonetheless killing someone because they published a cartoon however reprehensible to virtually all Muslims cannot be justified. These nutters need to be found.
Here again, we come to discuss "rights". What would be the view of PBers if the Home Secretary allowed more comprehensive tapping ?
http://youtu.be/3snRwSiDyc8
The health services of the country will be made available to all citizens. Everyone will contribute to the cost, and no one will be denied the attention, the treatment or the appliances he requires because he cannot afford them.
We propose to create a comprehensive health service covering the whole range of medical treatment from the general practitioner to the specialist, and from the hospital to convalescence and rehabilitation; and to introduce legislation for this purpose in the new Parliament.
The success of the service will depend on the skill and initiative of doctors, dentists, nurses and other professional people, and in its designing and operation there will be full scope for all the guidance they can give. Wide play must be given to the preferences and enterprise of individuals. Nothing will be done to destroy the close personal relationship between doctor and patient, nor to restrict the patient's free choice of doctor.
The whole service must be so designed that in each area its growth is helped and guided by the influence of a university. Through such a service the medical and allied professions will be enabled to serve the whole nation more effectively than they have yet been able to do. At the same time Medicine will be left free to develop along its own lines, and to achieve preventive as well as curative triumphs. Liberty is an essential condition of scientific progress.
The voluntary hospitals which have led the way in the development of hospital technique will remain free. They will play their part in the new service in friendly partnership with local authority hospitals.
Motherhood must be our special care. There must be a large increase of maternity beds and convalescent homes, and they must be provided in the right places. Mothers must be relieved of onerous duties which at such times so easily cause lasting injury to their health. The National Insurance Scheme will make financial provision for these needs. All proper arrangements, both voluntary and State-aided, must be made for the care of other young children in the family, in order that the energies of the male breadwinner or the kindness of neighbours and relations, which nevertheless must be the mainspring, should not be unduly burdened. Nursery schools and nurseries such as have grown up during the war should be encouraged. On the birth, the proper feeding and the healthy upbringing of a substantially increased number of children, depends the life of Britain and her enduring glory.
I think 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 could apply to the NHS. 7 doesn't - cost is not a factor. Moral hazard is great - it can apply to anyone from a doctor or hospital administrator to an Idaho potato farmer.
Still some good news to come in the NHS on Monday with a cull of useless treatments from the Cancer Drugs Fund. As taxpayers we should all be glad that this scheme designed entirely to divert profits to drug companies is being cut back.
I have to be honest - I don't know much about the mental illness aspects of the US health care system, so cannot contribute to any discussion about it, other than to acknowledge that I know it is far short of what it needs to be.
Life expectancy here varies greatly based on race, location, and income.
Same here. But overall Britons live longer.
And of course we spend only a half what the Americans do on health and get far better outcomes.