The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)
Discussion
walm said:
wiggy001 said:
If bed capacity is at 90% (ie 10% free) then you would agree that there is no reason for single person to spend a single minute in a corridor on a trolley?
No.That isn't how utilisation or averages work.
grantone said:
Aren't walm & don4l both right? Average capacity use is around 90%, but peak capacity use is over 100%?
Given how important most NHS tasks are we should probably focus on the peaks not the average?
I suspect keeping peaks below 100% would cost an incredibly large amount of money owing to the severe peaks and troughs of seasonality within healthcare. (i.e. to guarantee NO trolleys in corridors anywhere in the country EVER would require an absurd level of redundancy.)Given how important most NHS tasks are we should probably focus on the peaks not the average?
The point still stands that an extra 0.3% isn't the straw that broke the mythical camel's back.
wiggy001 said:
I know. But it was you that said (or at least suggested) that there was no issue as bed capacity is only around the 90% mark.
I didn't say there was no issue, just that an extra 0.3% doesn't suddenly push the NHS to breaking point and that making up numbers to support your view is a bit silly when those numbers are freely available.Murph7355 said:
The challenge for those running the NHS is how often those peaks are hit.
Hospitals are not cheap pieces of infrastructure. If you focus on the peaks and then they are stood empty for much of the time, or running well below capacity, the amount of money being wasted would be staggering. Which would cause equal and opposite issues (not least of which being the budget deficit making Gordon Brown look like a spenthrift).
Sorry - you beat me to it.Hospitals are not cheap pieces of infrastructure. If you focus on the peaks and then they are stood empty for much of the time, or running well below capacity, the amount of money being wasted would be staggering. Which would cause equal and opposite issues (not least of which being the budget deficit making Gordon Brown look like a spenthrift).
Exactly agree.
walm said:
Murph7355 said:
The challenge for those running the NHS is how often those peaks are hit.
Hospitals are not cheap pieces of infrastructure. If you focus on the peaks and then they are stood empty for much of the time, or running well below capacity, the amount of money being wasted would be staggering. Which would cause equal and opposite issues (not least of which being the budget deficit making Gordon Brown look like a spenthrift).
Sorry - you beat me to it.Hospitals are not cheap pieces of infrastructure. If you focus on the peaks and then they are stood empty for much of the time, or running well below capacity, the amount of money being wasted would be staggering. Which would cause equal and opposite issues (not least of which being the budget deficit making Gordon Brown look like a spenthrift).
Exactly agree.
walm said:
I didn't say there was no issue, just that an extra 0.3% doesn't suddenly push the NHS to breaking point and that making up numbers to support your view is a bit silly when those numbers are freely available.
Speaking of 'making up numbers to support your view', you claimed that the problems with the NHS (and other public services) were primarily linked to 'a decade of austerity, budget cuts and a lack of growth'.How does that reconcile with the known facts:
In nominal terms, NHS spending almost tripled between 1997 and 2009...
Between 2009/10 and 2020/21 actual or prjected spending will increase in real terms in every year apart from 2010/2011.
When the NHS was launched in 1948, it had a budget of £437 million (roughly £15 billion at today's value). For 2015/16, the overall NHS budget was around £116.4 billion.
These numbers are freely available...
????
Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 17th January 08:54
sidicks said:
walm said:
I didn't say there was no issue, just that an extra 0.3% doesn't suddenly push the NHS to breaking point and that making up numbers to support your view is a bit silly when those numbers are freely available.
Speaking of 'making up numbers to support your view', you claimed that the problems with the NHS (and other public services) were primarily linked to 'a decade of austerity, budget cuts and a lack of growth'.How does that reconcile with the known facts:
In nominal terms, NHS spending almost tripled between 1997 and 2009...
Between 2009/10 and 2020/21 actual or prjected spending will increase in real terms in every year apart from 2010/2011.
When the NHS was launched in 1948, it had a budget of £437 million (roughly £15 billion at today's value). For 2015/16, the overall NHS budget was around £116.4 billion.
These numbers are freely available...
????
Jockman said:
It's a seasonal industry. It needs to start thinking like one.
I am sure they do. (Jnr Doctors starting in lower-demand August for example.)Frankly, it seems to me that this absurd 7/7 requirement is causing many of the problems.
(As for the budget, I well know that it's up c.2-3% for the next 5 years.
The problem is that drug price inflation is up more and hence swallows most of that growth.)
Look, I am obviously no expert on the NHS.
What I am expert on is budgeting for enormous enterprises with £100bn operations.
And that is a highly imprecise sport.
Once again +/-0.3% is a rounding error.
Even in the highly predictable business of FMCG (think food and toiletries) they are off by +/-1% every quarter easily!
sidicks said:
walm said:
Oh OK, so there's plenty of money. Is that what you mean?
I'm wondering what you mean given your claims and the known facts are so different!It's roughly 2-3% per annum.
Swallowed by new projects like 7/7 cover and even more by inflation-busting drug price rises.
sidicks said:
walm said:
As above, "increasing in real terms" isn't enough.
It's roughly 2-3% per annum.
Swallowed by new projects like 7/7 cover and even more by inflation-busting drug price rises.
So nothing to do with 'austerity' and 'budget cuts' then?It's roughly 2-3% per annum.
Swallowed by new projects like 7/7 cover and even more by inflation-busting drug price rises.
Without austerity we would be investing far more than +2-3% p.a.
And because of the funds needed for 7/7 cuts have to be made elsewhere, e.g. the well-publicised closing of A&Es.
walm said:
Jockman said:
It's a seasonal industry. It needs to start thinking like one.
I am sure they do. (Jnr Doctors starting in lower-demand August for example.)Frankly, it seems to me that this absurd 7/7 requirement is causing many of the problems.
(As for the budget, I well know that it's up c.2-3% for the next 5 years.
The problem is that drug price inflation is up more and hence swallows most of that growth.)
Look, I am obviously no expert on the NHS.
What I am expert on is budgeting for enormous enterprises with £100bn operations.
And that is a highly imprecise sport.
Once again +/-0.3% is a rounding error.
Even in the highly predictable business of FMCG (think food and toiletries) they are off by +/-1% every quarter easily!
TBH some aspects of the NHS aren't seasonal - maternity, cancer ops etc.
Difficult to get the seasonal stuff right. If I knew the secret I would share it !!!
walm said:
I disagree.
Without austerity we would be investing far more than +2-3% p.a.
And because of the funds needed for 7/7 cuts have to be made elsewhere, e.g. the well-publicised closing of A&Es.
Increase was over 7% from 1997 - 2010.Without austerity we would be investing far more than +2-3% p.a.
And because of the funds needed for 7/7 cuts have to be made elsewhere, e.g. the well-publicised closing of A&Es.
Since when did increases in real terms equate to 'budget cuts'?
Why would you expect to need to have spending increases well above inflation simply to 'stand still'?
Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 17th January 09:31
Fellow posters, it's been fun debating on schools and the NHS, free movement of people and the like. As it looks like our opening negotiating position with the EU will be foxtrot oscar, most of these points are now moot, the hatchet needs to be buried and surely the debate should refocus on the economy.
sidicks said:
walm said:
I disagree.
Without austerity we would be investing far more than +2-3% p.a.
And because of the funds needed for 7/7 cuts have to be made elsewhere, e.g. the well-publicised closing of A&Es.
Increase was over 7% from 1997 - 2010.Without austerity we would be investing far more than +2-3% p.a.
And because of the funds needed for 7/7 cuts have to be made elsewhere, e.g. the well-publicised closing of A&Es.
Since when did increases in rela terms equate to 'budget cuts'?
Why would you expect to need to have spending increases well above inflation simply to 'stand still'?
I didn't mention the NHS budget is actually rising.
You win.
Have a nice day!
walm said:
I am sure you are scoring some points against me here Sidicks.
I didn't mention the NHS budget is actually rising.
You win.
Have a nice day!
Eh?I didn't mention the NHS budget is actually rising.
You win.
Have a nice day!
You criticised another poster about 'making up figures' while seemingly happy to invent other facts to suit your claims.
In the last 20 years the NHS has received significantly above inflation increases, yet somehow we are on the verge of crisis.
You claim that immigration hasn't caused this, so what has?
Bit pointless focussing on the NHS. I think the issues they experience have little to do with immigration. It's waste. Simple observations. Picking up a prescription-little old lady next to me had 3 tesco sized shopping bags FULL of pills. Must be a couple of grand in meds. Is it all required? Maybe not. My granny had 1500 paracetamol tablets in her bathroom. The doctor just keeps having them out. The other issue is the NHS is highly political. I don't believe most of the 'stuff' they come out with insofar as crisis.
sidicks said:
walm said:
I am sure you are scoring some points against me here Sidicks.
I didn't mention the NHS budget is actually rising.
You win.
Have a nice day!
Eh?I didn't mention the NHS budget is actually rising.
You win.
Have a nice day!
You criticised another poster about 'making up figures' while seemingly happy to invent other facts to suit your claims.
In the last 20 years the NHS has received significantly above inflation increases, yet somehow we are on the verge of crisis.
You claim that immigration hasn't caused this, so what has?
You keep repeating the same bs over and over again about increased spending. New treatments cost significantly more than they used to. We now have a ludicrious number of obese people. We have the highest number of teenage pregnancies and underage mothers in developed world. The cost of litigation is getting ridiculous as illustrated before. The cost of locums has gone through the roof (and it will get a lot worse thanks to idiotic 'ah let's have 7-day elective procedures that nobody else does').
The simple fact that we spend less than other developed nations on NHS per capita is lost on you. Unsurprisingly.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff