• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

ShipOfGoldblum said:
That’s a very strange time series to choose.
Click to expand...

From foundation to now compared to the next 5 years. Yes it’s an increase based on the current and previous administration but it’s hardly something to crow about, also, it’s clearly got nothing to do with money saved by leaving the EU (as that doesn’t actually exist), it will be through increased taxes elsewhere. Lastly, its still way below the number the NHS needs to not fall over.

It’s flimflam, and the press are buying it.
 
galeforce said:
From foundation to now compared to the next 5 years. Yes it’s an increase based on the current and previous administration but it’s hardly something to crow about, also, it’s clearly got nothing to do with money saved by leaving the EU (as that doesn’t actually exist), it will be through increased taxes elsewhere. Lastly, its still way below the number the NHS needs to not fall over.

It’s flimflam, and the press are buying it.
Click to expand...

No argument with any of that.
 
Gutter Boy said:
Money isn't what the NHS needs. It all gets hovered up by sub-contractors and big pharmas. Until we can get public procurement outside the EU tendering system, it will all end up tinkled up the wall.
Click to expand...

You're mixing up lots of different issues and putting a spurious and disingenuous Lexit spin on them.

AQP was imposed by Lansley's reforms. Once you are in an open procurement then sure, EU procurement rules apply. But there's no reason to use competitive tendering in the process in the first place; it was a foolish and ideological decision.

Whether you think that the cost of drugs is justified by their R&D overhead or not - and it's fair to be sceptical - we are 100% better off dealing with big pharma as part of the EU bloc than outside it. Certainly, a comprehensive free trade deal with the US would leave us much more vulnerable to big pharma's excesses, such as direct marketing to patients.

What the NHS needs is money. Given that there isn't money, what the NHS needs as a second-best option is a grown-up conversation about resource allocation. It's impossible to have that conversation when it's skewed by either right wing loonies pretending that all the money is wasted on diversity consultants, or left-wing loonies pretending that any spend with the private sector is evidence of waste and corruption.
 
I know plenty who work in the NHS and its a horror show, in how it managed and how it uses its budget.

What the NHS needs is reform, more so than money.

Yes, I know it needs money as well, but it gets tinkled up the wall mostly - its throwing good money after bad.

It really needs tearing down and re building (structurally) such that it can run at peak efficiency.

That way any money being put in returns more value. Or, indeed, there isnt such a need for more (as much more?) money.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
I know plenty who work in the NHS and its a horror show, in how it managed and how it uses its budget.

What the NHS needs is reform, more so than money.

Yes, I know it needs money as well, but it gets tinkled up the wall mostly - its throwing good money after bad.

It really needs tearing down and re building (structurally) such that it can run at peak efficiency.

That way any money being put in returns more value. Or, indeed, there isnt such a need for more (as much more?) money.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Every large organisation has efficiency horror stories. Structural reforms have a habit of encouraging valuable people to leave, and less valuable people to stay. You can't do the root and branch stuff while we still have employment protection: whether that's a good thing is moot.

The problem with current NHS reforms is that they are trying to do efficiency and transformation simultaneously, sometimes pretending that they are the same thing. You can't do reform on a shoe string, and you can't sort out health and social care separately.
 
Not maybe, most certainly. It haemorrhages money - often needlessly so.

That said I do agree, its an enormous job and one that is far from simple.

And it would take investment to achieve as well, again I agree.

My point is really, though, pouring money in before then is largely wasting it. The NHS needs a lot more than simply "more money".
 
I dont know, and I dont care. I do know the NHS is a clusterfudge that needs sorting - and simply pouring more money in isnt going to fix anything.

It is going to waste a lot of money though.
 
Last edited:
The NHS employs 1.7 million workers across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Birmingham has a population of 900K to add some perspective.

It's almost impossible to imagine the task of managing this size of an organisation. Waste is inevitable and I would suspect beyond most peoples true compression. Most people have trouble managing their credit cards.

My thought for today. I wonder how much the 10-year plan will cost to compile/create?
 
ShipOfGoldblum said:
Definitely the case, and any insurer-based model will introduce greater overhead and perverse incentives than even the nuttiest internal market.
Click to expand...

Yeah, IIRC America spends more per capita on healthcare than any other country, yet their system fails tens of millions of their own citizens (the insurance companies like it though).

For all the talk of inefficiency, the NHS provides excellent healthcare coverage for the population as a whole at a relatively low cost (when you look at the per capita spend compared to other developed nations). Even with these inefficiencies in place, if the spending was brought into line with other OECD nations, the service would improve and the pressures on it would ease.
 
SpurMeUp said:
Don't we spend less per head on health than other EU nations like Germany, or is this wrong?
Click to expand...

I think Germany have a social insurance model, where corporations take on a lot of the burden (like employer pension contributions here), rather than it coming from general taxation
 
the dza said:
Yeah, IIRC America spends more per capita on healthcare than any other country, yet their system fails tens of millions of their own citizens (the insurance companies like it though).

For all the talk of inefficiency, the NHS provides excellent healthcare coverage for the population as a whole at a relatively low cost (when you look at the per capita spend compared to other developed nations). Even with these inefficiencies in place, if the spending was brought into line with other OECD nations, the service would improve and the pressures on it would ease.
Click to expand...

I've never heard anyone say that before. At most people say they found the staff great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back