Gotta be honest as a Lib Dem the three updated constituency polls in London are really bad. Instead of squeezing the Labour vote we have gone backwards in two seats. Looks like the tactical voting message is not getting through. I am way out West so not involved in the London campaign but it does not look good for Thursday with probably only Richmond Park and just possibly Finchley & Golders Green in play.
From what I hear the LibDems are rather less confident of Hallam than they should be.
Jesus. Surely Labour can't hold Hallam after the fiasco of Jared O'Meara?
How many points is this tedious rubbish worth? How many seats?
Tedious rubbish?
The NHS is on its knees. For the majority of people in this country it really really matters.
Thing is I've been told its on its knees my whole adult life. I honestly cannot tell if it is or not as a result.
Just as we've been told that the Evil Tories have been plotting to sell off the NHS since Fatcha. Who knows, at some point maybe they'll actually try, but why should people listen to the warnings? After all these years of the NHS staying stubbornly in public hands, the ceaseless wailings about collapse and privatisation have more than a hint of The Boy Who Cried Wolf to them.
There has been a lot of privatisation already, this thread outlines some of the problems this brings:
My son is being seen urgently tomorrow by a private hospital paid for by the NHS
Should he just wait for however long he would have had to wait without that option?
Personally, as they rang him today and arranged this for tomorrow I take this as a positive choice and gives me a positive view of the NHS.
I have done very nicely out of NHS out sourcing myself. I made £3750 in a weekend once doing NHS work for a private company. As a short term fix it works, but the problem of NHS out sourcing is not that it adds capacity, it is that it stops the building of permanent capacity.
Perhaps you need to think on why your local NHS hospital lacked the facilities to see your son in the first place, and whether outsourcing will postpone that nessecary capacity.
Outsourcing is the answer to the question, why when the NHS budget is at an all time high, are so many NHS Trusts so in debt? That is where the money is going.
My own hospital has cancelled all planned children's admissions because of bed pressures. Is the answer to lose that income to a private provider, and only run services that are run at a loss? No organisation can sustain that sort of financial loss for long.
So there's enough money but it's being misallocated?
Some of the money is certainly misallocated, but I have never argued that the problems of the NHS are purely, or even predominantly financial.
Thanks. I am v interested to hear your thoughts but perhaps another day not at midnight.
So there's enough money but it's being misallocated?
It always used to be the case that the NHS was delivered on the cheap, but it's not quite the case now. We're above the OECD average now, and spending something like 25% more than Spain, which has a very well-regarded system. Same as New Zealand, or Finland, for example. Still admittedly nowhere near the likes of France (+33%ish).
At some stage surely the govt starts to look at a major reorganisation. There are plenty of different countries out there to learn from.
Only a Labour govt could do that; the Cons would never be allowed. And Lab aren't about to do it.
So there's enough money but it's being misallocated?
It always used to be the case that the NHS was delivered on the cheap, but it's not quite the case now. We're above the OECD average now, and spending something like 25% more than Spain, which has a very well-regarded system. Same as New Zealand, or Finland, for example. Still admittedly nowhere near the likes of France (+33%ish).
At some stage surely the govt starts to look at a major reorganisation. There are plenty of different countries out there to learn from.
Ultimately though the problem of universal health care is that the young and rich have to pay for the old and poor, because most of the sick are old and poor. Whether that is done via taxation or by insurance companies being forced to take expensive existing conditions, it is all money out of the healthy peoples pockets. One way of balancing the books is no longer having equity of access. Possible, but do we really want to go there as a society?
The genius of the Love Actually parody is that it has, predictably, annoyed lefties and Remainers so much they are retweeting it in their fury. See here:
Gotta be honest as a Lib Dem the three updated constituency polls in London are really bad. Instead of squeezing the Labour vote we have gone backwards in two seats. Looks like the tactical voting message is not getting through. I am way out West so not involved in the London campaign but it does not look good for Thursday with probably only Richmond Park and just possibly Finchley & Golders Green in play.
From what I hear the LibDems are rather less confident of Hallam than they should be.
Jesus. Surely Labour can't hold Hallam after the fiasco of Jared O'Meara?
The result will speak volumes, whichever way it goes
So there's enough money but it's being misallocated?
It always used to be the case that the NHS was delivered on the cheap, but it's not quite the case now. We're above the OECD average now, and spending something like 25% more than Spain, which has a very well-regarded system. Same as New Zealand, or Finland, for example. Still admittedly nowhere near the likes of France (+33%ish).
At some stage surely the govt starts to look at a major reorganisation. There are plenty of different countries out there to learn from.
Only a Labour govt could do that; the Cons would never be allowed. And Lab aren't about to do it.
Is there any country which hasn't fucked up on medical care to the satisfaction of its population without taxing them to hell and back?
The genius of the Love Actually parody is that it has, predictably, annoyed lefties and Remainers so much they are retweeting it in their fury. See here:
The Tories lied about an assault. I’m sure the Tories here will explain it away soon.
Put yourself in the position of that SPAD. You are walking along the road and you get cuffed. You and I know it wasn't a punch because we have seen the video. But how was the SPAD to know?
Evening Toppo
Any inside info as to how things are going ?
Evening old bean. Not from me. As I said last time information one way or another could be ammunition for the wrong side.
And you?
Only that BXP are bombarding South Yorkshire with leaflets and that the LibDems are not as confident in Hallam as they should have been.
So there's enough money but it's being misallocated?
It always used to be the case that the NHS was delivered on the cheap, but it's not quite the case now. We're above the OECD average now, and spending something like 25% more than Spain, which has a very well-regarded system. Same as New Zealand, or Finland, for example. Still admittedly nowhere near the likes of France (+33%ish).
At some stage surely the govt starts to look at a major reorganisation. There are plenty of different countries out there to learn from.
Ultimately though the problem of universal health care is that the young and rich have to pay for the old and poor, because most of the sick are old and poor. Whether that is done via taxation or by insurance companies being forced to take expensive existing conditions, it is all money out of the healthy peoples pockets. One way of balancing the books is no longer having equity of access. Possible, but do we really want to go there as a society?
Tax relief on private health care premiums would be a great way of freeing up capacity.
Gotta be honest as a Lib Dem the three updated constituency polls in London are really bad. Instead of squeezing the Labour vote we have gone backwards in two seats. Looks like the tactical voting message is not getting through. I am way out West so not involved in the London campaign but it does not look good for Thursday with probably only Richmond Park and just possibly Finchley & Golders Green in play.
From what I hear the LibDems are rather less confident of Hallam than they should be.
Jesus. Surely Labour can't hold Hallam after the fiasco of Jared O'Meara?
The result will speak volumes, whichever way it goes
Is Jo Swinson at risk of being less effective than Tim Farron? Perhaps his approach of spending the campaign talking about gay sex wasn't as bad as we thought.
How many points is this tedious rubbish worth? How many seats?
Tedious rubbish?
The NHS is on its knees. For the majority of people in this country it really really matters.
Thing is I've been told its on its knees my whole adult life. I honestly cannot tell if it is or not as a result.
Just as we've been told that the Evil Tories have been plotting to sell off the NHS since Fatcha. Who knows, at some point maybe they'll actually try, but why should people listen to the warnings? After all these years of the NHS staying stubbornly in public hands, the ceaseless wailings about collapse and privatisation have more than a hint of The Boy Who Cried Wolf to them.
There has been a lot of privatisation already, this thread outlines some of the problems this brings:
My son is being seen urgently tomorrow by a private hospital paid for by the NHS
Should he just wait for however long he would have had to wait without that option?
Personally, as they rang him today and arranged this for tomorrow I take this as a positive choice and gives me a positive view of the NHS.
I have done very
My own hospital has cancelled all planned children's admissions because of bed pressures. Is the answer to lose that income to a private provider, and only run services that are run at a loss? No organisation can sustain that sort of financial loss for long.
So there's enough money but it's being misallocated?
Some of the money is certainly misallocated, but I have never argued that the problems of the NHS are purely, or even predominantly financial.
Thanks. I am v interested to hear your thoughts but perhaps another day not at midnight.
Gotta be honest as a Lib Dem the three updated constituency polls in London are really bad. Instead of squeezing the Labour vote we have gone backwards in two seats. Looks like the tactical voting message is not getting through. I am way out West so not involved in the London campaign but it does not look good for Thursday with probably only Richmond Park and just possibly Finchley & Golders Green in play.
From what I hear the LibDems are rather less confident of Hallam than they should be.
Jesus. Surely Labour can't hold Hallam after the fiasco of Jared O'Meara?
You would think not.
O'Mara really hasn't been to the liking of the Hallam poshos.
Yet the LibDems campaign has been so dismal it seems Hallam isn't a guaranteed gain.
Gotta be honest as a Lib Dem the three updated constituency polls in London are really bad. Instead of squeezing the Labour vote we have gone backwards in two seats. Looks like the tactical voting message is not getting through. I am way out West so not involved in the London campaign but it does not look good for Thursday with probably only Richmond Park and just possibly Finchley & Golders Green in play.
From what I hear the LibDems are rather less confident of Hallam than they should be.
Jesus. Surely Labour can't hold Hallam after the fiasco of Jared O'Meara?
The result will speak volumes, whichever way it goes
Is Jo Swinson at risk of being less effective than Tim Farron? Perhaps his approach of spending the campaign talking about gay sex wasn't as bad as we thought.
I think you may have misread me. I don't give a fuck.
Is there any country which hasn't fucked up on medical care to the satisfaction of its population without taxing them to hell and back?
Was looking at some healthcare efficiency rankings - Spain and Italy seem to get a good rep. Cheaper than us but better results. Also Australia, Japan, Best Korea, and Israel.
The US, unsurprisingly, is way down near the bottom. Insanely expensive on _both_ the public and private front.
That’s garbage there were no trolleys available at that time , the hospital has confirmed this . Or are you going to accuse the CE of the hospital and her communications team of lying .
Do you accept what the hospital have said or are you going to continue peddling conspiracy theories because you’re pissed off because it’s been a bad day for Bozo .
The journalist who broke the story has been backed up by the hospital . The rubbish on Facebook has been put out there by a right wing fanboy of Bozo.
Ultimately though the problem of universal health care is that the young and rich have to pay for the old and poor, because most of the sick are old and poor. Whether that is done via taxation or by insurance companies being forced to take expensive existing conditions, it is all money out of the healthy peoples pockets. One way of balancing the books is no longer having equity of access. Possible, but do we really want to go there as a society?
Equity of access, but not of outcome. The unpalatable truth is that healthcare invests a huge amount of resources into giving people a slight extension to their lives. Ofren, arguably, at the point in their lifespan when they get the least from living and are least able to give anything more back.
Now this isn't necessarily morally wrong, and there is a strong counter-argument that it's a fair reward for the life they've lived BUT we need to be aware of the reality and own it rather than tiptoeing around it.
So there's enough money but it's being misallocated?
It always used to be the case that the NHS was delivered on the cheap, but it's not quite the case now. We're above the OECD average now, and spending something like 25% more than Spain, which has a very well-regarded system. Same as New Zealand, or Finland, for example. Still admittedly nowhere near the likes of France (+33%ish).
At some stage surely the govt starts to look at a major reorganisation. There are plenty of different countries out there to learn from.
Ultimately though the problem of universal health care is that the young and rich have to pay for the old and poor, because most of the sick are old and poor. Whether that is done via taxation or by insurance companies being forced to take expensive existing conditions, it is all money out of the healthy peoples pockets. One way of balancing the books is no longer having equity of access. Possible, but do we really want to go there as a society?
Tax relief on private health care premiums would be a great way of freeing up capacity.
One of the proposals in my PB header of 1 July 2018, though I think tax exempt savings for health and social care analogous to pensions is better
Is there any country which hasn't fucked up on medical care to the satisfaction of its population without taxing them to hell and back?
Was looking at some healthcare efficiency rankings - Spain and Italy seem to get a good rep. Cheaper than us but better results. Also Australia, Japan, Best Korea, and Israel.
The US, unsurprisingly, is way down near the bottom. Insanely expensive on _both_ the public and private front.
But what do they do to achieve that efficiency? The only thing our NHS seems to do efficiently is piss money up the wall.
Ultimately though the problem of universal health care is that the young and rich have to pay for the old and poor, because most of the sick are old and poor. Whether that is done via taxation or by insurance companies being forced to take expensive existing conditions, it is all money out of the healthy peoples pockets. One way of balancing the books is no longer having equity of access. Possible, but do we really want to go there as a society?
Equity of access, but not of outcome. The unpalatable truth is that healthcare invests a huge amount of resources into giving people a slight extension to their lives. Ofren, arguably, at the point in their lifespan when they get the least from living and are least able to give anything more back.
Now this isn't necessarily morally wrong, and there is a strong counter-argument that it's a fair reward for the life they've lived BUT we need to be aware of the reality and own it rather than tiptoeing around it.
It is actually a myth that the majority of health care spend is in end of life care. The reality is about 10%.
Real value for money comes from public health, but Tories dislike that.
Gotta be honest as a Lib Dem the three updated constituency polls in London are really bad. Instead of squeezing the Labour vote we have gone backwards in two seats. Looks like the tactical voting message is not getting through. I am way out West so not involved in the London campaign but it does not look good for Thursday with probably only Richmond Park and just possibly Finchley & Golders Green in play.
From what I hear the LibDems are rather less confident of Hallam than they should be.
Jesus. Surely Labour can't hold Hallam after the fiasco of Jared O'Meara?
The result will speak volumes, whichever way it goes
Is Jo Swinson at risk of being less effective than Tim Farron? Perhaps his approach of spending the campaign talking about gay sex wasn't as bad as we thought.
With gay sex you can at least guarantee 1 in 10 of the population are interested in it!
How many points is this tedious rubbish worth? How many seats?
Tedious rubbish?
The NHS is on its knees. For the majority of people in this country it really really matters.
Thing is I've been told its on its knees my whole adult life. I honestly cannot tell if it is or not as a result.
Just as we've been told that the Evil Tories have been plotting to sell off the NHS since Fatcha. Who knows, at some point maybe they'll actually try, but why should people listen to the warnings? After all these years of the NHS staying stubbornly in public hands, the ceaseless wailings about collapse and privatisation have more than a hint of The Boy Who Cried Wolf to them.
There has been a lot of privatisation already, this thread outlines some of the problems this brings:
My son is being seen urgently tomorrow by a private hospital paid for by the NHS
Should he just wait for however long he would have had to wait without that option?
Personally, as they rang him today and arranged this for tomorrow I take this as a positive choice and gives me a positive view of the NHS.
I have done very
My own hospital has cancelled all planned children's admissions because of bed pressures. Is the answer to lose that income to a private provider, and only run services that are run at a loss? No organisation can sustain that sort of financial loss for long.
So there's enough money but it's being misallocated?
Some of the money is certainly misallocated, but I have never argued that the problems of the NHS are purely, or even predominantly financial.
Thanks. I am v interested to hear your thoughts but perhaps another day not at midnight.
No surprise you’re trying to attack me rather than own up to your prejudices. You can’t ever attempt to play the moral high ground card again - shame on you all.
My son is being seen urgently tomorrow by a private hospital paid for by the NHS
Should he just wait for however long he would have had to wait without that option?
Personally, as they rang him today and arranged this for tomorrow I take this as a positive choice and gives me a positive view of the NHS.
I have done very
My own hospital has cancelled all planned children's admissions because of bed pressures. Is the answer to lose that income to a private provider, and only run services that are run at a loss? No organisation can sustain that sort of financial loss for long.
So there's enough money but it's being misallocated?
Some of the money is certainly misallocated, but I have never argued that the problems of the NHS are purely, or even predominantly financial.
Thanks. I am v interested to hear your thoughts but perhaps another day not at midnight.
I go back and forth on the idea of a hypothecated tax (you’d move some income tax over to NI until it covered it and use the opportunity to apply NI to the retired, and make it more progressive at the top end).
On the plus side we could compare pricing with other systems. On the negative side we could compare pricing with other systems.
Overall I like the idea though - set the principle that the NHS can be as good as we are prepared to pay for, and make people see progressive contributions as a public good.
That’s garbage there were no trolleys available at that time , the hospital has confirmed this . Or are you going to accuse the CE of the hospital and her communications team of lying .
Do you accept what the hospital have said or are you going to continue peddling conspiracy theories because you’re pissed off because it’s been a bad day for Bozo .
The journalist who broke the story has been backed up by the hospital . The rubbish on Facebook has been put out there by a right wing fanboy of Bozo.
I am due to change my car next year. I have a lease and get a new one every 2 or 3 years.
For the first time ever I am tempted by 1. an electric car, or 2. going without a car entirely, as I barely use my present motor, thanks to London Transport and, especially, Uber
I am spending £500 a month to own a car I drive once a fortnight. It is insane.
Sadiq Khan's psychotic jihad against Uber is probably the only thing preventing me ditching my motor altogether. Which just shows how fucking stupid his policy is. Uber will kill car ownership, given time, which reduced pollution and congestion. But Sadiq wants to keep polluting diesel black cabs in business. Twat.
What you need - particularly if you live in Central London - is membership of a car club. A car when you need one and only when you need one. Far more cost effective. Also particularly suitable for families with two cars on the drive for the one time every two weeks when different offspring need to be ferried to different places at the same time.
It does mean you have to stop using your car as a spare room to house all the stuff which needs a home somewhere but doesn't yet have one.
I have yet to find a car club which will tolerate the number of plants, compost bags, garden rubbish and similar - even our 7 foot Xmas tree every year - which goes into my car on a regular basis. My son once commented, while scraping off moss from the bottom of the car windows, that other people had window boxes on their houses while I had mine on my car!
That is surely a matter of being careful and tidy.
Ultimately though the problem of universal health care is that the young and rich have to pay for the old and poor, because most of the sick are old and poor. Whether that is done via taxation or by insurance companies being forced to take expensive existing conditions, it is all money out of the healthy peoples pockets. One way of balancing the books is no longer having equity of access. Possible, but do we really want to go there as a society?
Equity of access, but not of outcome. The unpalatable truth is that healthcare invests a huge amount of resources into giving people a slight extension to their lives. Ofren, arguably, at the point in their lifespan when they get the least from living and are least able to give anything more back.
Now this isn't necessarily morally wrong, and there is a strong counter-argument that it's a fair reward for the life they've lived BUT we need to be aware of the reality and own it rather than tiptoeing around it.
There does seem to be a tendency for the NHS to throw a disproportionate part of its budget at PR friendly/ promotional stuff. I have a lot of experience of the NHS dealing with run of the mill stuff (e.g. pneumonia, diabetic problems) and quite frankly they're mostly shit at that - my nephrectomy was okay but the aftercare sucked.
The hospital verified the story and you are peddling conspiracy theories? A new low even for you HYUFD
It’s tragic. Bozo could decapitate Bambi on live tv and HYUFD would still doubt it !
Did you forget Bambi was the nickname for Tony Blair? I rather suspect Boris could decapitate Bambi on live TV and Corbynistas will be claiming its the one good thing Boris has done.
Is there any country which hasn't fucked up on medical care to the satisfaction of its population without taxing them to hell and back?
Was looking at some healthcare efficiency rankings - Spain and Italy seem to get a good rep. Cheaper than us but better results. Also Australia, Japan, Best Korea, and Israel.
The US, unsurprisingly, is way down near the bottom. Insanely expensive on _both_ the public and private front.
But what do they do to achieve that efficiency? The only thing our NHS seems to do efficiently is piss money up the wall.
Lifestyle.
The reason that Spaniards and Italians have longer healthier lives is down to diet, obesity levels etc, much more than health care.
Take Glasgow for example. The life expectancy between West and East Glasgow is a dozen or so years. That has little to do with access to hospitals, but a lot to do with lifestyle.
That’s garbage there were no trolleys available at that time , the hospital has confirmed this . Or are you going to accuse the CE of the hospital and her communications team of lying .
Do you accept what the hospital have said or are you going to continue peddling conspiracy theories because you’re pissed off because it’s been a bad day for Bozo .
The journalist who broke the story has been backed up by the hospital . The rubbish on Facebook has been put out there by a right wing fanboy of Bozo.
"1. The NHS payment system is complicated. Hospitals get ‘paid’ with government funds for each case or procedure they perform. ... 2. But private providers deliberately target stand-alone, ‘profitable’ services that are quick and straightforward, like orthopaedics."
That old chestnut again. It really is the most spectacularly stupid argument. Who sets the fixed NHS prices? If some standalone services are more profitable than others - hip replacements rather than A+E, for example - then what does that tell you? How hard is it to understand that it tells you that the NHS fixed prices for hip replacements are too high, and therefore hip replacements in the NHS are inefficient? The solution, as used in virtually every other field of human endeavour is a market with open price discovery - you need MORE, not less, privatisation, combined with bidding on price, to improve efficiency.
The Tories here are an absolute disgrace. So desperate to defend your man you’ll lie and attack others. You’re a cult.
That’s bit rich coming from you.
When did I lie?
You, on here, professed to first hand experience of the GFC. You were rumbled and then you were forced to apologise for lying. Only because you were rumbled.
Additionally a Labour supporter crying foul over conspiracy theories is beyond the pale considering the daily river of shite that emanates from the usual Twitter Corbynites.
Is there any country which hasn't fucked up on medical care to the satisfaction of its population without taxing them to hell and back?
Was looking at some healthcare efficiency rankings - Spain and Italy seem to get a good rep. Cheaper than us but better results. Also Australia, Japan, Best Korea, and Israel.
The US, unsurprisingly, is way down near the bottom. Insanely expensive on _both_ the public and private front.
My son is being seen urgently tomorrow by a private hospital paid for by the NHS
Should he just wait for however long he would have had to wait without that option?
Personally, as they rang him today and arranged this for tomorrow I take this as a positive choice and gives me a positive view of the NHS.
I have done very
My own hospital has cancelled all planned children's admissions because of bed pressures. Is the answer to lose that income to a private provider, and only run services that are run at a loss? No organisation can sustain that sort of financial loss for long.
So there's enough money but it's being misallocated?
Some of the money is certainly misallocated, but I have never argued that the problems of the NHS are purely, or even predominantly financial.
Thanks. I am v interested to hear your thoughts but perhaps another day not at midnight.
I go back and forth on the idea of a hypothecated tax (you’d move some income tax over to NI until it covered it and use the opportunity to apply NI to the retired, and make it more progressive at the top end).
On the plus side we could compare pricing with other systems. On the negative side we could compare pricing with other systems.
Overall I like the idea though - set the principle that the NHS can be as good as we are prepared to pay for, and make people see progressive contributions as a public good.
Hypothecation would be an administrative nightmare.
That’s garbage there were no trolleys available at that time , the hospital has confirmed this . Or are you going to accuse the CE of the hospital and her communications team of lying .
Do you accept what the hospital have said or are you going to continue peddling conspiracy theories because you’re pissed off because it’s been a bad day for Bozo .
The journalist who broke the story has been backed up by the hospital . The rubbish on Facebook has been put out there by a right wing fanboy of Bozo.
The Tories here are an absolute disgrace. So desperate to defend your man you’ll lie and attack others. You’re a cult.
That’s bit rich coming from you.
When did I lie?
You, on here, professed to first hand experience of the GFC. You were rumbled and then you were forced to apologise for lying. Only because you were rumbled.
Additionally a Labour supporter crying foul over conspiracy theories is beyond the pale considering the daily river of shite that emanates from the usual Twitter Corbynites.
Imagine using this as an excuse to explain away a faked assault.
I apologised about the GFC, I held my hands up. But you won’t, why not?
That’s garbage there were no trolleys available at that time , the hospital has confirmed this . Or are you going to accuse the CE of the hospital and her communications team of lying .
Do you accept what the hospital have said or are you going to continue peddling conspiracy theories because you’re pissed off because it’s been a bad day for Bozo .
The journalist who broke the story has been backed up by the hospital . The rubbish on Facebook has been put out there by a right wing fanboy of Bozo.
Ultimately though the problem of universal health care is that the young and rich have to pay for the old and poor, because most of the sick are old and poor. Whether that is done via taxation or by insurance companies being forced to take expensive existing conditions, it is all money out of the healthy peoples pockets. One way of balancing the books is no longer having equity of access. Possible, but do we really want to go there as a society?
Equity of access, but not of outcome. The unpalatable truth is that healthcare invests a huge amount of resources into giving people a slight extension to their lives. Ofren, arguably, at the point in their lifespan when they get the least from living and are least able to give anything more back.
Now this isn't necessarily morally wrong, and there is a strong counter-argument that it's a fair reward for the life they've lived BUT we need to be aware of the reality and own it rather than tiptoeing around it.
It is actually a myth that the majority of health care spend is in end of life care. The reality is about 10%.
Real value for money comes from public health, but Tories dislike that.
I suspect that carved out overhead costs? Otherwise I’m not sure I believe it - where does the rest go?
The Tories here are an absolute disgrace. So desperate to defend your man you’ll lie and attack others. You’re a cult.
That’s bit rich coming from you.
When did I lie?
You, on here, professed to first hand experience of the GFC. You were rumbled and then you were forced to apologise for lying. Only because you were rumbled.
Additionally a Labour supporter crying foul over conspiracy theories is beyond the pale considering the daily river of shite that emanates from the usual Twitter Corbynites.
Imagine using this as an excuse to explain away a faked assault.
I apologised about the GFC, I held my hands up. But you won’t, why not?
Is there any country which hasn't fucked up on medical care to the satisfaction of its population without taxing them to hell and back?
Was looking at some healthcare efficiency rankings - Spain and Italy seem to get a good rep. Cheaper than us but better results. Also Australia, Japan, Best Korea, and Israel.
The US, unsurprisingly, is way down near the bottom. Insanely expensive on _both_ the public and private front.
But what do they do to achieve that efficiency? The only thing our NHS seems to do efficiently is piss money up the wall.
Lifestyle.
The reason that Spaniards and Italians have longer healthier lives is down to diet, obesity levels etc, much more than health care.
Take Glasgow for example. The life expectancy between West and East Glasgow is a dozen or so years. That has little to do with access to hospitals, but a lot to do with lifestyle.
I knew about the Glasgow effect, but I didn't know there was such discrepancy within Glasgow. What must life expectancy inthe east end be - 50?!
"1. The NHS payment system is complicated. Hospitals get ‘paid’ with government funds for each case or procedure they perform. ... 2. But private providers deliberately target stand-alone, ‘profitable’ services that are quick and straightforward, like orthopaedics."
That old chestnut again. It really is the most spectacularly stupid argument. Who sets the fixed NHS prices? If some standalone services are more profitable than others - hip replacements rather than A+E, for example - then what does that tell you? How hard is it to understand that it tells you that the NHS fixed prices for hip replacements are too high, and therefore hip replacements in the NHS are inefficient? The solution, as used in virtually every other field of human endeavour is a market with open price discovery - you need MORE, not less, privatisation, combined with bidding on price, to improve efficiency.
"1. The NHS payment system is complicated. Hospitals get ‘paid’ with government funds for each case or procedure they perform. ... 2. But private providers deliberately target stand-alone, ‘profitable’ services that are quick and straightforward, like orthopaedics."
That old chestnut again. It really is the most spectacularly stupid argument. Who sets the fixed NHS prices? If some standalone services are more profitable than others - hip replacements rather than A+E, for example - then what does that tell you? How hard is it to understand that it tells you that the NHS fixed prices for hip replacements are too high, and therefore hip replacements in the NHS are inefficient? The solution, as used in virtually every other field of human endeavour is a market with open price discovery - you need MORE, not less, privatisation, combined with bidding on price, to improve efficiency.
Hard truths are called that for a reason but you'll know that.
"1. The NHS payment system is complicated. Hospitals get ‘paid’ with government funds for each case or procedure they perform. ... 2. But private providers deliberately target stand-alone, ‘profitable’ services that are quick and straightforward, like orthopaedics."
That old chestnut again. It really is the most spectacularly stupid argument. Who sets the fixed NHS prices? If some standalone services are more profitable than others - hip replacements rather than A+E, for example - then what does that tell you? How hard is it to understand that it tells you that the NHS fixed prices for hip replacements are too high, and therefore hip replacements in the NHS are inefficient? The solution, as used in virtually every other field of human endeavour is a market with open price discovery - you need MORE, not less, privatisation, combined with bidding on price, to improve efficiency.
Prices are not set by hospitals, they are set by the government nationally. Many services such as emergencies only run at a loss, but are compulsory to provide. Private contractors obviously are not interested in these, so the residual NHS gets lumbered with these loss makers, while outsourcing companies reel in the bucks.
"1. The NHS payment system is complicated. Hospitals get ‘paid’ with government funds for each case or procedure they perform. ... 2. But private providers deliberately target stand-alone, ‘profitable’ services that are quick and straightforward, like orthopaedics."
That old chestnut again. It really is the most spectacularly stupid argument. Who sets the fixed NHS prices? If some standalone services are more profitable than others - hip replacements rather than A+E, for example - then what does that tell you? How hard is it to understand that it tells you that the NHS fixed prices for hip replacements are too high, and therefore hip replacements in the NHS are inefficient? The solution, as used in virtually every other field of human endeavour is a market with open price discovery - you need MORE, not less, privatisation, combined with bidding on price, to improve efficiency.
Sorry I can understand why you’d think that but it’s not true. The key thing to understand is that the NHS underwrites all healthcare in the U.K. (if anything goes wrong in a private hospital that basically ring 999) so it’s overheads are higher.
The stuff that private providers do for the NHS is the cheap, easy stuff. And that’s good in theory - they can scale it, compete, and focus on it. But you’ll never have useful competition.
The Tories here are an absolute disgrace. So desperate to defend your man you’ll lie and attack others. You’re a cult.
That’s bit rich coming from you.
When did I lie?
You, on here, professed to first hand experience of the GFC. You were rumbled and then you were forced to apologise for lying. Only because you were rumbled.
Additionally a Labour supporter crying foul over conspiracy theories is beyond the pale considering the daily river of shite that emanates from the usual Twitter Corbynites.
Imagine using this as an excuse to explain away a faked assault.
I apologised about the GFC, I held my hands up. But you won’t, why not?
Here’s the account your lot are happily pretending is legitimate.
What has @ozymandias got to apologise for? They've barely commented today.
Doesn’t matter how many times they’ve commented. They’ve defended a faked assault and a conspiracy theorist pretending a boy in hospital on the floor by attacking me. Unfortunately it’s fallen flat as I’ve already apologised and I’ve held my hands up.
Shame Tories can’t do the same. Moral high ground is gone.
The Tories here are an absolute disgrace. So desperate to defend your man you’ll lie and attack others. You’re a cult.
That’s bit rich coming from you.
When did I lie?
You, on here, professed to first hand experience of the GFC. You were rumbled and then you were forced to apologise for lying. Only because you were rumbled.
Additionally a Labour supporter crying foul over conspiracy theories is beyond the pale considering the daily river of shite that emanates from the usual Twitter Corbynites.
Imagine using this as an excuse to explain away a faked assault.
I apologised about the GFC, I held my hands up. But you won’t, why not?
Here’s the account your lot are happily pretending is legitimate.
What has @ozymandias got to apologise for? They've barely commented today.
Doesn’t matter how many times they’ve commented. They’ve defended a faked assault and a conspiracy theorist pretending a boy in hospital on the floor by attacking me. Unfortunately it’s fallen flat as I’ve already apologised and I’ve held my hands up.
Shame Tories can’t do the same. Moral high ground is gone.
But they haven't, unless you can point to a post where they did?
I hope the truth will out so that arseholes on both sides can accept it. Won't happen.
Purdah rules presumably mean all the hospital can do is take it on face value and issue an apology. But after the election, once an investigation has been carried out, they'll be free to set the record straight one way or another.
"1. The NHS payment system is complicated. Hospitals get ‘paid’ with government funds for each case or procedure they perform. ... 2. But private providers deliberately target stand-alone, ‘profitable’ services that are quick and straightforward, like orthopaedics."
That old chestnut again. It really is the most spectacularly stupid argument. Who sets the fixed NHS prices? If some standalone services are more profitable than others - hip replacements rather than A+E, for example - then what does that tell you? How hard is it to understand that it tells you that the NHS fixed prices for hip replacements are too high, and therefore hip replacements in the NHS are inefficient? The solution, as used in virtually every other field of human endeavour is a market with open price discovery - you need MORE, not less, privatisation, combined with bidding on price, to improve efficiency.
Prices are not set by hospitals, they are set by the government nationally. Many services such as emergencies only run at a loss, but are compulsory to provide. Private contractors obviously are not interested in these, so the residual NHS gets lumbered with these loss makers, while outsourcing companies reel in the bucks.
"1. The NHS payment system is complicated. Hospitals get ‘paid’ with government funds for each case or procedure they perform. ... 2. But private providers deliberately target stand-alone, ‘profitable’ services that are quick and straightforward, like orthopaedics."
That old chestnut again. It really is the most spectacularly stupid argument. Who sets the fixed NHS prices? If some standalone services are more profitable than others - hip replacements rather than A+E, for example - then what does that tell you? How hard is it to understand that it tells you that the NHS fixed prices for hip replacements are too high, and therefore hip replacements in the NHS are inefficient? The solution, as used in virtually every other field of human endeavour is a market with open price discovery - you need MORE, not less, privatisation, combined with bidding on price, to improve efficiency.
Sorry I can understand why you’d think that but it’s not true. The key thing to understand is that the NHS underwrites all healthcare in the U.K. (if anything goes wrong in a private hospital that basically ring 999) so it’s overheads are higher.
The stuff that private providers do for the NHS is the cheap, easy stuff. And that’s good in theory - they can scale it, compete, and focus on it. But you’ll never have useful competition.
My son is seeing a consultant tomorrow - he saw a consultant previously.
A consultant is cheap easy stuff?
Again - I am pleased to not have to wait for what I am told is an urgent appointment.
"1. The NHS payment system is complicated. Hospitals get ‘paid’ with government funds for each case or procedure they perform. ... 2. But private providers deliberately target stand-alone, ‘profitable’ services that are quick and straightforward, like orthopaedics."
That old chestnut again. It really is the most spectacularly stupid argument. Who sets the fixed NHS prices? If some standalone services are more profitable than others - hip replacements rather than A+E, for example - then what does that tell you? How hard is it to understand that it tells you that the NHS fixed prices for hip replacements are too high, and therefore hip replacements in the NHS are inefficient? The solution, as used in virtually every other field of human endeavour is a market with open price discovery - you need MORE, not less, privatisation, combined with bidding on price, to improve efficiency.
Sorry I can understand why you’d think that but it’s not true. The key thing to understand is that the NHS underwrites all healthcare in the U.K. (if anything goes wrong in a private hospital that basically ring 999) so it’s overheads are higher.
The stuff that private providers do for the NHS is the cheap, easy stuff. And that’s good in theory - they can scale it, compete, and focus on it. But you’ll never have useful competition.
And they do that for foreign nationals with no NHS access entitlement and can't be arsed to even try to recoup the cost.
Is there any country which hasn't fucked up on medical care to the satisfaction of its population without taxing them to hell and back?
Was looking at some healthcare efficiency rankings - Spain and Italy seem to get a good rep. Cheaper than us but better results. Also Australia, Japan, Best Korea, and Israel.
The US, unsurprisingly, is way down near the bottom. Insanely expensive on _both_ the public and private front.
But what do they do to achieve that efficiency? The only thing our NHS seems to do efficiently is piss money up the wall.
Lifestyle.
The reason that Spaniards and Italians have longer healthier lives is down to diet, obesity levels etc, much more than health care.
Take Glasgow for example. The life expectancy between West and East Glasgow is a dozen or so years. That has little to do with access to hospitals, but a lot to do with lifestyle.
I think there's an important issue you've highlighted there.
Instead of comparisons between countries we should concentrate on comparisons within countries.
As to diet and obesity specifically I'm always struck by how many grotty takeaways more deprived suburbs have and they're not cheap either.
"1. The NHS payment system is complicated. Hospitals get ‘paid’ with government funds for each case or procedure they perform. ... 2. But private providers deliberately target stand-alone, ‘profitable’ services that are quick and straightforward, like orthopaedics."
That old chestnut again. It really is the most spectacularly stupid argument. Who sets the fixed NHS prices? If some standalone services are more profitable than others - hip replacements rather than A+E, for example - then what does that tell you? How hard is it to understand that it tells you that the NHS fixed prices for hip replacements are too high, and therefore hip replacements in the NHS are inefficient? The solution, as used in virtually every other field of human endeavour is a market with open price discovery - you need MORE, not less, privatisation, combined with bidding on price, to improve efficiency.
Sorry I can understand why you’d think that but it’s not true. The key thing to understand is that the NHS underwrites all healthcare in the U.K. (if anything goes wrong in a private hospital that basically ring 999) so it’s overheads are higher.
The stuff that private providers do for the NHS is the cheap, easy stuff. And that’s good in theory - they can scale it, compete, and focus on it. But you’ll never have useful competition.
My son is seeing a consultant tomorrow - he saw a consultant previously.
A consultant is cheap easy stuff?
Again - I am pleased to not have to wait for what I am told is an urgent appointment.
Yes, basically. A consultation is predictable and relatively easy.
I hope the truth will out so that arseholes on both sides can accept it. Won't happen.
Purdah rules presumably mean all the hospital can do is take it on face value and issue an apology. But after the election, once an investigation has been carried out, they'll be free to set the record straight one way or another.
All businesses will take the easy way out if the hard way costs them more money. Public and private sectors are the same in that respect unless you want to be Venezuela.
"1. The NHS payment system is complicated. Hospitals get ‘paid’ with government funds for each case or procedure they perform. ... 2. But private providers deliberately target stand-alone, ‘profitable’ services that are quick and straightforward, like orthopaedics."
That old chestnut again. It really is the most spectacularly stupid argument. Who sets the fixed NHS prices? If some standalone services are more profitable than others - hip replacements rather than A+E, for example - then what does that tell you? How hard is it to understand that it tells you that the NHS fixed prices for hip replacements are too high, and therefore hip replacements in the NHS are inefficient? The solution, as used in virtually every other field of human endeavour is a market with open price discovery - you need MORE, not less, privatisation, combined with bidding on price, to improve efficiency.
Sorry I can understand why you’d think that but it’s not true. The key thing to understand is that the NHS underwrites all healthcare in the U.K. (if anything goes wrong in a private hospital that basically ring 999) so it’s overheads are higher.
The stuff that private providers do for the NHS is the cheap, easy stuff. And that’s good in theory - they can scale it, compete, and focus on it. But you’ll never have useful competition.
My son is seeing a consultant tomorrow - he saw a consultant previously.
A consultant is cheap easy stuff?
Again - I am pleased to not have to wait for what I am told is an urgent appointment.
Yes, basically. A consultation is predictable and relatively easy.
As Foxy says above, the set unit costs paid by Gvt are what they are. And they hospitals have to use that as cross-subsidy for all manner of things no private hospital would touch. They’d ring 999.
"1. The NHS payment system is complicated. Hospitals get ‘paid’ with government funds for each case or procedure they perform. ... 2. But private providers deliberately target stand-alone, ‘profitable’ services that are quick and straightforward, like orthopaedics."
That old chestnut again. It really is the most spectacularly stupid argument. Who sets the fixed NHS prices? If some standalone services are more profitable than others - hip replacements rather than A+E, for example - then what does that tell you? How hard is it to understand that it tells you that the NHS fixed prices for hip replacements are too high, and therefore hip replacements in the NHS are inefficient? The solution, as used in virtually every other field of human endeavour is a market with open price discovery - you need MORE, not less, privatisation, combined with bidding on price, to improve efficiency.
Sorry I can understand why you’d think that but it’s not true. The key thing to understand is that the NHS underwrites all healthcare in the U.K. (if anything goes wrong in a private hospital that basically ring 999) so it’s overheads are higher.
The stuff that private providers do for the NHS is the cheap, easy stuff. And that’s good in theory - they can scale it, compete, and focus on it. But you’ll never have useful competition.
My son is seeing a consultant tomorrow - he saw a consultant previously.
A consultant is cheap easy stuff?
Again - I am pleased to not have to wait for what I am told is an urgent appointment.
But to some you'll be a rich bastard who's able to jump the queue. I share your values.
That’s garbage there were no trolleys available at that time , the hospital has confirmed this . Or are you going to accuse the CE of the hospital and her communications team of lying .
Do you accept what the hospital have said or are you going to continue peddling conspiracy theories because you’re pissed off because it’s been a bad day for Bozo .
The journalist who broke the story has been backed up by the hospital . The rubbish on Facebook has been put out there by a right wing fanboy of Bozo.
So apparently the mother turned up at the hospital with her own equipment as in the O2 mask to stage this ! Can you please stop embarrassing yourself HYUFD !
It was a bad day for Bozo , it happens !
By the way the Bozo car crash clip now has 8 million views !
Is there any country which hasn't fucked up on medical care to the satisfaction of its population without taxing them to hell and back?
Was looking at some healthcare efficiency rankings - Spain and Italy seem to get a good rep. Cheaper than us but better results. Also Australia, Japan, Best Korea, and Israel.
The US, unsurprisingly, is way down near the bottom. Insanely expensive on _both_ the public and private front.
But what do they do to achieve that efficiency? The only thing our NHS seems to do efficiently is piss money up the wall.
Lifestyle.
The reason that Spaniards and Italians have longer healthier lives is down to diet, obesity levels etc, much more than health care.
Take Glasgow for example. The life expectancy between West and East Glasgow is a dozen or so years. That has little to do with access to hospitals, but a lot to do with lifestyle.
I think there's an important issue you've highlighted there.
Instead of comparisons between countries we should concentrate on comparisons within countries.
As to diet and obesity specifically I'm always struck by how many grotty takeaways more deprived suburbs have and they're not cheap either.
Ultimately though the problem of universal health care is that the young and rich have to pay for the old and poor, because most of the sick are old and poor. Whether that is done via taxation or by insurance companies being forced to take expensive existing conditions, it is all money out of the healthy peoples pockets. One way of balancing the books is no longer having equity of access. Possible, but do we really want to go there as a society?
Equity of access, but not of outcome. The unpalatable truth is that healthcare invests a huge amount of resources into giving people a slight extension to their lives. Ofren, arguably, at the point in their lifespan when they get the least from living and are least able to give anything more back.
Now this isn't necessarily morally wrong, and there is a strong counter-argument that it's a fair reward for the life they've lived BUT we need to be aware of the reality and own it rather than tiptoeing around it.
It is actually a myth that the majority of health care spend is in end of life care. The reality is about 10%.
Real value for money comes from public health, but Tories dislike that.
Not surprised as my fathers local hospital said they will not take my father in if he falls ill again and set in place an end of life care plan.
I do understand they will take him in if he breaks something in a fall - other than that, nope.
"1. The NHS payment system is complicated. Hospitals get ‘paid’ with government funds for each case or procedure they perform. ... 2. But private providers deliberately target stand-alone, ‘profitable’ services that are quick and straightforward, like orthopaedics."
That old chestnut again. It really is the most spectacularly stupid argument. Who sets the fixed NHS prices? If some standalone services are more profitable than others - hip replacements rather than A+E, for example - then what does that tell you? How hard is it to understand that it tells you that the NHS fixed prices for hip replacements are too high, and therefore hip replacements in the NHS are inefficient? The solution, as used in virtually every other field of human endeavour is a market with open price discovery - you need MORE, not less, privatisation, combined with bidding on price, to improve efficiency.
Sorry I can understand why you’d think that but it’s not true. The key thing to understand is that the NHS underwrites all healthcare in the U.K. (if anything goes wrong in a private hospital that basically ring 999) so it’s overheads are higher.
The stuff that private providers do for the NHS is the cheap, easy stuff. And that’s good in theory - they can scale it, compete, and focus on it. But you’ll never have useful competition.
My son is seeing a consultant tomorrow - he saw a consultant previously.
A consultant is cheap easy stuff?
Again - I am pleased to not have to wait for what I am told is an urgent appointment.
Yes, basically. A consultation is predictable and relatively easy.
"1. The NHS payment system is complicated. Hospitals get ‘paid’ with government funds for each case or procedure they perform. ... 2. But private providers deliberately target stand-alone, ‘profitable’ services that are quick and straightforward, like orthopaedics."
That old chestnut again. It really is the most spectacularly stupid argument. Who sets the fixed NHS prices? If some standalone services are more profitable than others - hip replacements rather than A+E, for example - then what does that tell you? How hard is it to understand that it tells you that the NHS fixed prices for hip replacements are too high, and therefore hip replacements in the NHS are inefficient? The solution, as used in virtually every other field of human endeavour is a market with open price discovery - you need MORE, not less, privatisation, combined with bidding on price, to improve efficiency.
Sorry I can understand why you’d think that but it’s not true. The key thing to understand is that the NHS underwrites all healthcare in the U.K. (if anything goes wrong in a private hospital that basically ring 999) so it’s overheads are higher.
The stuff that private providers do for the NHS is the cheap, easy stuff. And that’s good in theory - they can scale it, compete, and focus on it. But you’ll never have useful competition.
And they do that for foreign nationals with no NHS access entitlement and can't be arsed to even try to recoup the cost.
Sorry but that’s marginal cost stuff. We should try and recharge but our hospitals aren’t configured to ask for cash and I, for one, don’t want to live in a country where healthcare is withheld.
"1. The NHS payment system is complicated. Hospitals get ‘paid’ with government funds for each case or procedure they perform. ... 2. But private providers deliberately target stand-alone, ‘profitable’ services that are quick and straightforward, like orthopaedics."
That old chestnut again. It really is the most spectacularly stupid argument. Who sets the fixed NHS prices? If some standalone services are more profitable than others - hip replacements rather than A+E, for example - then what does that tell you? How hard is it to understand that it tells you that the NHS fixed prices for hip replacements are too high, and therefore hip replacements in the NHS are inefficient? The solution, as used in virtually every other field of human endeavour is a market with open price discovery - you need MORE, not less, privatisation, combined with bidding on price, to improve efficiency.
Sorry I can understand why you’d think that but it’s not true. The key thing to understand is that the NHS underwrites all healthcare in the U.K. (if anything goes wrong in a private hospital that basically ring 999) so it’s overheads are higher.
The stuff that private providers do for the NHS is the cheap, easy stuff. And that’s good in theory - they can scale it, compete, and focus on it. But you’ll never have useful competition.
My son is seeing a consultant tomorrow - he saw a consultant previously.
A consultant is cheap easy stuff?
Again - I am pleased to not have to wait for what I am told is an urgent appointment.
But to some you'll be a rich bastard who's able to jump the queue. I share your values.
The NHS is paying.
I did however pay for another private appointment for a second opinion whilst this guy was off sick
"1. The NHS payment system is complicated. Hospitals get ‘paid’ with government funds for each case or procedure they perform. ... 2. But private providers deliberately target stand-alone, ‘profitable’ services that are quick and straightforward, like orthopaedics."
That old chestnut again. It really is the most spectacularly stupid argument. Who sets the fixed NHS prices? If some standalone services are more profitable than others - hip replacements rather than A+E, for example - then what does that tell you? How hard is it to understand that it tells you that the NHS fixed prices for hip replacements are too high, and therefore hip replacements in the NHS are inefficient? The solution, as used in virtually every other field of human endeavour is a market with open price discovery - you need MORE, not less, privatisation, combined with bidding on price, to improve efficiency.
Sorry I can understand why you’d think that but it’s not true. The key thing to understand is that the NHS underwrites all healthcare in the U.K. (if anything goes wrong in a private hospital that basically ring 999) so it’s overheads are higher.
The stuff that private providers do for the NHS is the cheap, easy stuff. And that’s good in theory - they can scale it, compete, and focus on it. But you’ll never have useful competition.
My son is seeing a consultant tomorrow - he saw a consultant previously.
A consultant is cheap easy stuff?
Again - I am pleased to not have to wait for what I am told is an urgent appointment.
Yes, basically. A consultation is predictable and relatively easy.
So why can't the NHS handle it?
It can. We ration by waiting time where there are capacity issues. Some countries ration by cost, we ration by time.
I hope the truth will out so that arseholes on both sides can accept it. Won't happen.
Purdah rules presumably mean all the hospital can do is take it on face value and issue an apology. But after the election, once an investigation has been carried out, they'll be free to set the record straight one way or another.
Purdah rules don’t apply to hospitals . The hospital has confirmed the journalists report . I can’t believe purdah is now being brought into this !
"1. The NHS payment system is complicated. Hospitals get ‘paid’ with government funds for each case or procedure they perform. ... 2. But private providers deliberately target stand-alone, ‘profitable’ services that are quick and straightforward, like orthopaedics."
That old chestnut again. It really is the most spectacularly stupid argument. Who sets the fixed NHS prices? If some standalone services are more profitable than others - hip replacements rather than A+E, for example - then what does that tell you? How hard is it to understand that it tells you that the NHS fixed prices for hip replacements are too high, and therefore hip replacements in the NHS are inefficient? The solution, as used in virtually every other field of human endeavour is a market with open price discovery - you need MORE, not less, privatisation, combined with bidding on price, to improve efficiency.
Sorry I can understand why you’d think that but it’s not true. The key thing to understand is that the NHS underwrites all healthcare in the U.K. (if anything goes wrong in a private hospital that basically ring 999) so it’s overheads are higher.
The stuff that private providers do for the NHS is the cheap, easy stuff. And that’s good in theory - they can scale it, compete, and focus on it. But you’ll never have useful competition.
And they do that for foreign nationals with no NHS access entitlement and can't be arsed to even try to recoup the cost.
Sorry but that’s marginal cost stuff. We should try and recharge but our hospitals aren’t configured to ask for cash and I, for one, don’t want to live in a country where healthcare is withheld.
And I’m usually accused of being a “PB Tory”....
When does marginal end and significant start? To the nearest £100m will do.
"1. The NHS payment system is complicated. Hospitals get ‘paid’ with government funds for each case or procedure they perform. ... 2. But private providers deliberately target stand-alone, ‘profitable’ services that are quick and straightforward, like orthopaedics."
That old chestnut again. It really is the most spectacularly stupid argument. Who sets the fixed NHS prices? If some standalone services are more profitable than others - hip replacements rather than A+E, for example - then what does that tell you? How hard is it to understand that it tells you that the NHS fixed prices for hip replacements are too high, and therefore hip replacements in the NHS are inefficient? The solution, as used in virtually every other field of human endeavour is a market with open price discovery - you need MORE, not less, privatisation, combined with bidding on price, to improve efficiency.
Sorry I can understand why you’d think that but it’s not true. The key thing to understand is that the NHS underwrites all healthcare in the U.K. (if anything goes wrong in a private hospital that basically ring 999) so it’s overheads are higher.
The stuff that private providers do for the NHS is the cheap, easy stuff. And that’s good in theory - they can scale it, compete, and focus on it. But you’ll never have useful competition.
My son is seeing a consultant tomorrow - he saw a consultant previously.
A consultant is cheap easy stuff?
Again - I am pleased to not have to wait for what I am told is an urgent appointment.
Yes, basically. A consultation is predictable and relatively easy.
So why can't the NHS handle it?
It can. We ration by waiting time where there are capacity issues. Some countries ration by cost, we ration by time.
Con 39 (-3) Lab 35 (+1) LD 13 (+1) TBP 3 (-1) Gre 3 (-1)
7th - 9th December 2019
Changes from 5-6 Dec
But no idea where this has come from as it's not officially up on the Yougov archive (though I guess it's not difficult to find the url). The formatting seems odd too.
I hope the truth will out so that arseholes on both sides can accept it. Won't happen.
Purdah rules presumably mean all the hospital can do is take it on face value and issue an apology. But after the election, once an investigation has been carried out, they'll be free to set the record straight one way or another.
Purdah rules don’t apply to hospitals . The hospital has confirmed the journalists report . I can’t believe purdah is now being brought into this !
Just to say, you’re right in substance but someone is going to be a pedant and state that NHS Trusts do get Purdah guidance and have special rules.
They do (long and boring but stuff like access for candidates whilst not being used for campaigning). However none of it would stop them correcting the record here had there been anything sinister. There clearly was not.
A little boy lay on his coat in a consulting room. It happens, but it would be better if it didn’t. That’s all.
Some of the money is certainly misallocated, but I have never argued that the problems of the NHS are purely, or even predominantly financial.
Thanks. I am v interested to hear your thoughts but perhaps another day not at midnight.
Long post, sorry.
I’m just about to enter my 25th year in the NHS (as a manager) - and I’ve worked in a range of settings in primary, acute and specialist care in Scotland, Wales and England.
I’ve worked in failing organisations and currently work for a Trust that just received its second CQC Outstanding rating and has been rated the best in the UK by patients and staff multiple times in the past decade. The difference between the two is primarily a question of leadership, not resource.
In those 25 years, every year I’ve been told the NHS is on its knees and morale has never been lower.
The problem is not one of money (although more is often helpful).
The problems are two-fold:
1. The service is still designed around a disease burden and epidemiology from 1948, with patients bouncing between different sectors. Boundaries and thresholds are introduced to manage flow and protect expensive resources - meaning diagnosis and treatment is fragmented and episodic. Modern medicine is a team game that requires integration and co-ordination to manage multiple chronic diseases over long periods of time. The service simply isn’t designed in this way.
2. it is still like a supertanker in two important ways:
Firstly change takes an awful long time to introduce, with each local system wanting to test new ideas and develop their own evidence base. innovation should be a standard franchised approach and implemented universally.
Secondly, it is very difficult to turn on and off “surge” capacity when demand increases - winter, Mondays, 0800-1000 everyday, etc. It’s a bit like trying to run the national grid using only coal-fired power stations when everyone wants a cuppa during the ad break in X-Factor. The pressure relief in the system as @Foxy sadly knows too well is to delay entry to the system through A&E waits, ambulance waits and patients on trolleys; or to switch planned capacity off and convert to urgent capacity. Both are a raw deal for patients and staff.
The answer isn’t the difference between £30bn or £36bn; or more/less privatisation. It’s not 40 more hospitals - when out of hospital capacity is what’s often needed.
The answer is to resign the whole system - into an integrated health and social care system that focuses as much on prevention and prediction of ill health as it does on treatment and earlier intervention.
But those answers are difficult for vote-chasing politicians.
Gotta be honest as a Lib Dem the three updated constituency polls in London are really bad. Instead of squeezing the Labour vote we have gone backwards in two seats. Looks like the tactical voting message is not getting through. I am way out West so not involved in the London campaign but it does not look good for Thursday with probably only Richmond Park and just possibly Finchley & Golders Green in play.
From what I hear the LibDems are rather less confident of Hallam than they should be.
It would be extraordinary (but far from impossible) for the LDs to double their vote share (to 14.6% nationwide) but see their seats slip back.
The issue they have is that: - LD/Lab marginals are almost entirely University seats where belief in Corbyn remains strong - There are a number of LD Leave seats that are vulnerable (Eastbourne & North Norfolk) - The SNP's vote share is up as much as their's in Scotland, and all of their seats there (except O&S) are marginal - They look to fall just short in a swathe of Remainia
That’s garbage there were no trolleys available at that time , the hospital has confirmed this . Or are you going to accuse the CE of the hospital and her communications team of lying .
Do you accept what the hospital have said or are you going to continue peddling conspiracy theories because you’re pissed off because it’s been a bad day for Bozo .
The journalist who broke the story has been backed up by the hospital . The rubbish on Facebook has been put out there by a right wing fanboy of Bozo.
It's a lie about the mother of a sick child made to sleep on a hospital floor, for having the temerity to allow people to find out what happened. The mother has been named, and to suggest that she put her ill son on the floor so that she could photograph him and send photos to the media before he climbed back onto the trolley is surely libellous as well as being a vile lie.
It's as if Tories believe "the end justifies the means" as well as "the Party is always right".
Con 39 (-3) Lab 35 (+1) LD 13 (+1) TBP 3 (-1) Gre 3 (-1)
7th - 9th December 2019
Changes from 5-6 Dec
But no idea where this has come from as it's not officially up on the Yougov archive (though I guess it's not difficult to find the url). The formatting seems odd too.
"1. The NHS payment system is complicated. Hospitals get ‘paid’ with government funds for each case or procedure they perform. ... 2. But private providers deliberately target stand-alone, ‘profitable’ services that are quick and straightforward, like orthopaedics."
That old chestnut again. It really is the most spectacularly stupid argument. Who sets the fixed NHS prices? If some standalone services are more profitable than others - hip replacements rather than A+E, for example - then what does that tell you? How hard is it to understand that it tells you that the NHS fixed prices for hip replacements are too high, and therefore hip replacements in the NHS are inefficient? The solution, as used in virtually every other field of human endeavour is a market with open price discovery - you need MORE, not less, privatisation, combined with bidding on price, to improve efficiency.
Sorry I can understand why you’d think that but it’s not true. The key thing to understand is that the NHS underwrites all healthcare in the U.K. (if anything goes wrong in a private hospital that basically ring 999) so it’s overheads are higher.
The stuff that private providers do for the NHS is the cheap, easy stuff. And that’s good in theory - they can scale it, compete, and focus on it. But you’ll never have useful competition.
My son is seeing a consultant tomorrow - he saw a consultant previously.
A consultant is cheap easy stuff?
Again - I am pleased to not have to wait for what I am told is an urgent appointment.
Yes, basically. A consultation is predictable and relatively easy.
So why can't the NHS handle it?
It can. We ration by waiting time where there are capacity issues. Some countries ration by cost, we ration by time.
Time is money. Or have I got that wrong?
Yes.
Let’s say you have ear-wax buildup-us. We decide to run a capacity level that allows you to be treated within three months. We do this because there are peaks and troughs (it’s seasonal).
To let you be treated next week, we would need more widgets and widget operators; and because demand fluctuates they’d be under occupied some of the time and cost us money.
We “charge” you time to save us “ultimately taxpayers” money.
He ranted and raged at the Health Secretary for doing his job and visiting a hospital then whacked his head with his arm.
Disgraceful behaviour from the hard left
There didn't seem much physical contact in the clip but the bloke in the high vis jacket with the bike is clearly a cunt.
From that video it was a case of ball to arm, not arm to ball. But the protester is rather odious, and the whole episode reflects badly on all parties.
Eh, Pearson was saying earlier that she was going to publish proof that the mother faked the photo. The way the Boris cult twists and turns to do anything to protect its leader is mind bending.
Comments
And the journalist has responded to the garbage being spouted by AS and others . The chief executive of the hospital has apologized to the family .
Tax relief on private health care premiums would be a great way of freeing up capacity.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/07/01/three-score-and-ten-has-the-nhs-reached-the-end-of-its-natural-life/
O'Mara really hasn't been to the liking of the Hallam poshos.
Yet the LibDems campaign has been so dismal it seems Hallam isn't a guaranteed gain.
The US, unsurprisingly, is way down near the bottom. Insanely expensive on _both_ the public and private front.
Do you accept what the hospital have said or are you going to continue peddling conspiracy theories because you’re pissed off because it’s been a bad day for Bozo .
The journalist who broke the story has been backed up by the hospital . The rubbish on Facebook has been put out there by a right wing fanboy of Bozo.
Equity of access, but not of outcome. The unpalatable truth is that healthcare invests a huge amount of resources into giving people a slight extension to their lives. Ofren, arguably, at the point in their lifespan when they get the least from living and are least able to give anything more back.
Now this isn't necessarily morally wrong, and there is a strong counter-argument that it's a fair reward for the life they've lived BUT we need to be aware of the reality and own it rather than tiptoeing around it.
An actual journalist confirming the story is real. Fuck you.
Real value for money comes from public health, but Tories dislike that.
On the plus side we could compare pricing with other systems. On the negative side we could compare pricing with other systems.
Overall I like the idea though - set the principle that the NHS can be as good as we are prepared to pay for, and make people see progressive contributions as a public good.
Or joining a Van Club.
The reason that Spaniards and Italians have longer healthier lives is down to diet, obesity levels etc, much more than health care.
Take Glasgow for example. The life expectancy between West and East Glasgow is a dozen or so years. That has little to do with access to hospitals, but a lot to do with lifestyle.
Shame on you.
"1. The NHS payment system is complicated. Hospitals get ‘paid’ with government funds for each case or procedure they perform.
...
2. But private providers deliberately target stand-alone, ‘profitable’ services that are quick and straightforward, like orthopaedics."
That old chestnut again. It really is the most spectacularly stupid argument. Who sets the fixed NHS prices? If some standalone services are more profitable than others - hip replacements rather than A+E, for example - then what does that tell you? How hard is it to understand that it tells you that the NHS fixed prices for hip replacements are too high, and therefore hip replacements in the NHS are inefficient? The solution, as used in virtually every other field of human endeavour is a market with open price discovery - you need MORE, not less, privatisation, combined with bidding on price, to improve efficiency.
Additionally a Labour supporter crying foul over conspiracy theories is beyond the pale considering the daily river of shite that emanates from the usual Twitter Corbynites.
This is the bullshit twitter account you’re posting about. Imagine being this partisan you can’t even see truth from fiction.
I apologised about the GFC, I held my hands up. But you won’t, why not?
https://twitter.com/stevepeers/status/1204193205064994819?s=21
Here’s the account your lot are happily pretending is legitimate.
The stuff that private providers do for the NHS is the cheap, easy stuff. And that’s good in theory - they can scale it, compete, and focus on it. But you’ll never have useful competition.
Shame Tories can’t do the same. Moral high ground is gone.
A consultant is cheap easy stuff?
Again - I am pleased to not have to wait for what I am told is an urgent appointment.
Instead of comparisons between countries we should concentrate on comparisons within countries.
As to diet and obesity specifically I'm always struck by how many grotty takeaways more deprived suburbs have and they're not cheap either.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1204091610843226112?s=21
See for yourself
It was a bad day for Bozo , it happens !
By the way the Bozo car crash clip now has 8 million views !
I do understand they will take him in if he breaks something in a fall - other than that, nope.
And I’m usually accused of being a “PB Tory”....
I did however pay for another private appointment for a second opinion whilst this guy was off sick
Disgraceful behaviour from the hard left
https://d2yo3ms314fxf7.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/itsi0h01ub/TheTimes_Results_191209_w.pdf
Con 39 (-3)
Lab 35 (+1)
LD 13 (+1)
TBP 3 (-1)
Gre 3 (-1)
7th - 9th December 2019
Changes from 5-6 Dec
But no idea where this has come from as it's not officially up on the Yougov archive (though I guess it's not difficult to find the url). The formatting seems odd too.
They do (long and boring but stuff like access for candidates whilst not being used for campaigning). However none of it would stop them correcting the record here had there been anything sinister. There clearly was not.
A little boy lay on his coat in a consulting room. It happens, but it would be better if it didn’t. That’s all.
I’m just about to enter my 25th year in the NHS (as a manager) - and I’ve worked in a range of settings in primary, acute and specialist care in Scotland, Wales and England.
I’ve worked in failing organisations and currently work for a Trust that just received its second CQC Outstanding rating and has been rated the best in the UK by patients and staff multiple times in the past decade. The difference between the two is primarily a question of leadership, not resource.
In those 25 years, every year I’ve been told the NHS is on its knees and morale has never been lower.
The problem is not one of money (although more is often helpful).
The problems are two-fold:
1. The service is still designed around a disease burden and epidemiology from 1948, with patients bouncing between different sectors. Boundaries and thresholds are introduced to manage flow and protect expensive resources - meaning diagnosis and treatment is fragmented and episodic. Modern medicine is a team game that requires integration and co-ordination to manage multiple chronic diseases over long periods of time. The service simply isn’t designed in this way.
2. it is still like a supertanker in two important ways:
Firstly change takes an awful long time to introduce, with each local system wanting to test new ideas and develop their own evidence base. innovation should be a standard franchised approach and implemented universally.
Secondly, it is very difficult to turn on and off “surge” capacity when demand increases - winter, Mondays, 0800-1000 everyday, etc. It’s a bit like trying to run the national grid using only coal-fired power stations when everyone wants a cuppa during the ad break in X-Factor. The pressure relief in the system as @Foxy sadly knows too well is to delay entry to the system through A&E waits, ambulance waits and patients on trolleys; or to switch planned capacity off and convert to urgent capacity. Both are a raw deal for patients and staff.
The answer isn’t the difference between £30bn or £36bn; or more/less privatisation. It’s not 40 more hospitals - when out of hospital capacity is what’s often needed.
The answer is to resign the whole system - into an integrated health and social care system that focuses as much on prevention and prediction of ill health as it does on treatment and earlier intervention.
But those answers are difficult for vote-chasing politicians.
The issue they have is that:
- LD/Lab marginals are almost entirely University seats where belief in Corbyn remains strong
- There are a number of LD Leave seats that are vulnerable (Eastbourne & North Norfolk)
- The SNP's vote share is up as much as their's in Scotland, and all of their seats there (except O&S) are marginal
- They look to fall just short in a swathe of Remainia
It's as if Tories believe "the end justifies the means" as well as "the Party is always right".
Because the last poll had the Tories on 43 and Labour on 33 so those changes wouldn’t be right .
Let’s say you have ear-wax buildup-us. We decide to run a capacity level that allows you to be treated within three months. We do this because there are peaks and troughs (it’s seasonal).
To let you be treated next week, we would need more widgets and widget operators; and because demand fluctuates they’d be under occupied some of the time and cost us money.
We “charge” you time to save us “ultimately taxpayers” money.
A real hatemonger there.