Politics, politics, politics

[scaramanga]

I added the countries I would consider similar - (didn't pick and chose to make the point)

Not sure if the image is uploaded as I cant see them on this PC but link is:

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator...s=GB-US-DE-FR-AU-CA-JP-XC&start=2014&view=bar

So more money may not be the solution for the NHS but I would like to see how it fairs before changing the structure, lets pay what others are and if it still doesn't work change.

That's not the order in which to do things. Once you've turned that socialist ratchet it will never return again whether the NHS needs the money or not.

 

[r-u-s-x]

That's not the order in which to do things. Once you've turned that socialist ratchet it will never return again whether the NHS needs the money or not.

I believe the socialist health service is the most efficient system at the moment, its only underfunded so it is the way to do it. Once it goes to a inefficient private service it will never return again.

 

[scaramanga]

I believe the socialist health service is the most efficient system at the moment, its only underfunded so it is the way to do it. Once it goes to a inefficient private service it will never return again.

I wasn't comparing with private service, I was simply talking about the fact that a party campaigning to reduce NHS funding would never get a chance to form a government. So if we increased funding and then managed to be more efficient and cheaper, it would be too late to reduce spending.

Why do you assume that a private system would be less efficient? What makes healthcare different from the rest of what the private sector does?

 

[r-u-s-x]

I wasn't comparing with private service, I was simply talking about the fact that a party campaigning to reduce NHS funding would never get a chance to form a government. So if we increased funding and then managed to be more efficient and cheaper, it would be too late to reduce spending.

Why do you assume that a private system would be less efficient? What makes healthcare different from the rest of what the private sector does?

I am guessing most use this report https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health to back this up, I use it because it is in the public conscience since this came out and it suits my agenda. But even if it is not I would suggest we cant be to critical of the system we have now until we give equal funding that the alternative would cost. If we still lag behind other private / public private services after a period of spending similar amount you then have the remit to change.

 

[scaramanga]

I am guessing most use this report https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health to back this up, I use it because it is in the public conscience since this came out and it suits my agenda. But even if it is not I would suggest we cant be to critical of the system we have now until we give equal funding that the alternative would cost. If we still lag behind other private / public private services after a period of spending similar amount you then have the remit to change.

That study also takes into account the provision of insurance, which I don't believe should change in terms of what the patient sees. It should still be publicly funded and free to all (ignoring excessive taxation obviously), that study wraps up the method of payment too.

If we do things your way (increase funding first, look for savings later) we will never be able to reduce funding - even if it's not needed. Just imagine a party (any party) standing with a message of "We're going to spend less on the NHS"! Even when parties do plan to spend less they still have to pretend they're going to spend more.

 

[r-u-s-x]

If we do things your way (increase funding first, look for savings later) we will never be able to reduce funding - even if it's not needed. Just imagine a party (any party) standing with a message of "We're going to spend less on the NHS"! Even when parties do plan to spend less they still have to pretend they're going to spend more.

The funding appears to be needed hence similar countries (with different ideals) spending it, its just how it is spent that is at question in my mind.

it can be sold as:

"the NHS is not working with the current spending, we believe that the answer is to be like "Germany / France / US (pick one)" however this system will cost an Extra £X BN. We will put this into the NHS to see if this gets us to the better service levels that this country invests, after X years if we d not see the improvement we will look to mimic this system as NHS is not sustainable."

 

[scaramanga]

The funding appears to be needed hence similar countries (with different ideals) spending it, its just how it is spent that is at question in my mind.

it can be sold as:

"the NHS is not working with the current spending, we believe that the answer is to be like "Germany / France / US (pick one)" however this system will cost an Extra £X BN. We will put this into the NHS to see if this gets us to the better service levels that this country invests, after X years if we d not see the improvement we will look to mimic this system as NHS is not sustainable."

So what happens if we put in an extra £xBN only to discover a few years down the line that we have found £x/2BN in efficiency/technology savings?

Do you genuinely think that any party could get elected on the promise of reducing spend by that much? That, in essence, is the socialist ratchet - you have to be extremely careful where you put my money, because you're essentially committing it in perpetuity.

 

[Grays_1890]

Whats this day of rage all about?

 

[Bullet]

Indeed, obviously no huge organisation is 100% efficient, but I don't know if the NHS is 95% efficient or 90 or 70 or 50...

People extrapolate wildly based on very limited experiences.

E.g. When I was in hospital an old man opposite with a broken leg was deemed fit to discharge home, as they needed the bed. Clearly he was very frail and unsteady and would fall over. Two days later they readmit him with a broken collar bone and arm as he did fall over. Wasteful. But I don't know how often that happens.

Similarly my kid had his eyes checked at school and he plus several classmates were told to go see an ophthalmologist at the hospital for an hour appointment. She took one look and said he was fine and it was a waste of time. But I don't know how often this happens.







In all these political and societal matters you need to cast your mind back to the 70s and early 80s when Britain was crushed, impoverished, no services, on strike, brutal. Things are flipping MARVELLOUS nowadays

 

[r-u-s-x]

So what happens if we put in an extra £xBN only to discover a few years down the line that we have found £x/2BN in efficiency/technology savings?

Do you genuinely think that any party could get elected on the promise of reducing spend by that much? That, in essence, is the socialist ratchet - you have to be extremely careful where you put my money, because you're essentially committing it in perpetuity.

I don't believe those savings are there, we have been trying to do "more with less" for the past 7 years and it appears all measures are getting worse? - I base this by comparing spend in many different countries with different social structures and levels of market involvement. I can understand your point, I do not agree with it in this case due to real world examples showing we are underfunded. I wish to have a decent healthcare, I believe this should be universal at the point of need. I am not married to the NHS model but I don't believe you can say it is a failure until you invest similar amounts to the "successful model" that is already out there.

If we were overspending compared to similar economies I would be suggesting a change in model to produce efficiencies.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Indeed, obviously no huge organisation is 100% efficient, but I don't know if the NHS is 95% efficient or 90 or 70 or 50...

People extrapolate wildly based on very limited experiences.

E.g. When I was in hospital an old man opposite with a broken leg was deemed fit to discharge home, as they needed the bed. Clearly he was very frail and unsteady and would fall over. Two days later they readmit him with a broken collar bone and arm as he did fall over. Wasteful. But I don't know how often that happens.

Similarly my kid had his eyes checked at school and he plus several classmates were told to go see an ophthalmologist at the hospital for an hour appointment. She took one look and said he was fine and it was a waste of time. But I don't know how often this happens.







In all these political and societal matters you need to cast your mind back to the 70s and early 80s when Britain was crushed, impoverished, no services, on strike, brutal. Things are flipping MARVELLOUS nowadays

Ha, ha crushed , impoverished and no service...how ironic... that is how a huge portion of British people feel about the Tories and their redistributive economic policies from the bottom to the top.

 

[parklane1]

In all these political and societal matters you need to cast your mind back to the 70s and early 80s when Britain was crushed, impoverished, no services, on strike, brutal. Things are flipping MARVELLOUS nowadays[/QUOTE]

For some maybe, i can assure you most doctors, nurses etc think they are failing to give a proper service to the people.

 

[spitshine]

I see the Grenfell residents have been offered flats that are worth upwards of £1.5m..... to rent. I think the buyers in the surrounding blocks will be livid

 

[the dza]

So, apparently the cladding used on Grenfell IS banned here on buildings above a certain height. Thankfully, the government did it's job with that at least, so the regulation is there afterall (I thought from an earlier article in The Times that it wasn't). At least we can be thankful that we have the regulations in place which hopefully means this stuff isn't on other tower blocks.

However, Kensington and Chelsea council failed to spot that the improper cladding was being used, despite inspecting the renovation works on 16 separate occasions:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ions-failed-to-stop-use-of-flammable-cladding

 

[Robspur12]

I see the Grenfell residents have been offered flats that are worth upwards of £1.5m..... to rent. I think the buyers in the surrounding blocks will be livid

They are probably renting their properties for several times the rent of the state tenants so won't care. Of course if the Council had not tried to do the renovation on the cheap they wouldn't have to rehouse the tenants at great cost.

 

[monkeybarry]

I see the Grenfell residents have been offered flats that are worth upwards of £1.5m..... to rent. I think the buyers in the surrounding blocks will be livid

If they don't like it they can move.
Market forces

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

So, apparently the cladding used on Grenfell IS banned here on buildings above a certain height. Thankfully, the government did it's job with that at least, so the regulation is there afterall (I thought from an earlier article in The Times that it wasn't). At least we can be thankful that we have the regulations in place which hopefully means this stuff isn't on other tower blocks.

However, Kensington and Chelsea council failed to spot that the improper cladding was being used, despite inspecting the renovation works on 16 separate occasions:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ions-failed-to-stop-use-of-flammable-cladding

So an apology to the government?

 

[the dza]

So an apology to the government?

I wouldn't go that far. May herself said the government response to the disaster wasn't good enough. And there are aspects of the report done on the fire in 2009 that have been ignored, as well as the letters from the Parliamentary committee on fire safety.

So good, we have a necessary regulation. Now we need to know why it hasn't been enforced and if this is rife across other councils, because if so, then many other people will be at risk.

 

[Bullet]

Ha, ha crushed , impoverished and no service...how ironic... that is how a huge portion of British people feel.

Yes, a huge portion. But back 30-35 years it was worse. People nowadays are a lot better off, even if things are bleak, the reality and the opportunities are far better than 30-35 years ago

 

[Rorschach]

Yes, a huge portion. But back 30-35 years it was worse. People nowadays are a lot better off, even if things are bleak, the reality and the opportunities are far better than 30-35 years ago

Who'd have thought thirty year ago we'd all be sittin' here drinking Château deChasselas, eh?