Public satisfaction with NHS at lowest ever level
Discussion
pavarotti1980 said:
Funnily enough I do and I've found private care to be suprisingly cheap.
And yet the NHS is cheaper but it should be scrapped wobble
Yeah. I thought a hip op would be 50 grand. Not sure what my perception of healthcare prices has to do with whether the NHS should be scrapped.And yet the NHS is cheaper but it should be scrapped wobble
The NHS should be scrapped because everyone agrees it's either maliciously run to collapse itself or incompetently run and it can't be topped up, so if it's not adequate for you there's nothing practical you can do about it.
French person: The government isn't spending enough for me I'll add 10% of my own cash.
British person: The government isn't spending enough for me I'll start a thred on Pistonheads.
Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Wednesday 27th March 11:31
BikeBikeBIke said:
Yeah. I thought a hip op would be 50 grand. Not sure what my perception of healthcare prices has to do with whether the NHS should be scrapped.
The NHS should be scrapped because everyone agrees it's either maliciously run to collapse itself or incompetently run and it can't be topped up, so if it's not adequate for you there's nothing practical you can do about it.
French person: The government isn't spending enough for me I'll add 10% of my own cash.
British person: The government isn't spending enough for me I'll start a thred on Pistonheads.
You thought a hip replacement was £50k and you think you know how to solve healthcare provision hahahahaThe NHS should be scrapped because everyone agrees it's either maliciously run to collapse itself or incompetently run and it can't be topped up, so if it's not adequate for you there's nothing practical you can do about it.
French person: The government isn't spending enough for me I'll add 10% of my own cash.
British person: The government isn't spending enough for me I'll start a thred on Pistonheads.
Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Wednesday 27th March 11:31
Countdown said:
Vanden Saab said:
MrsVS and 3 of her recently retired colleagues...hi NHS we have just retired after 30+ years as a nurses we would like to work 2 days a week for you.
NHS... no thanks we do not want you. .
But yeah grrr tories we are 50,000 nurses short. It is all the government's fault
What's stopping them becoming Bank nurses, either direct with the NHS or via an Agency ?NHS... no thanks we do not want you. .
But yeah grrr tories we are 50,000 nurses short. It is all the government's fault
pavarotti1980 said:
You thought a hip replacement was £50k and you think you know how to solve healthcare provision hahahaha
The problem of healthcare provision, as stated by people that know, is either government incompetence or government malice.Any solution to that has to involve removing the government from the healthcare. (Just pick the best system from Europe and go with that, French one will keep everyone happy because top ups.)
If the response to that is "Ahhh, future governments will be competent and not malicious" then fine, we can reinstate the NHS when we get permanent benign competent governments.
BikeBikeBIke said:
The problem of healthcare provision, as stated by people that know, is either government incompetence or government malice.
Any solution to that has to involve removing the government from the healthcare. (Just pick the best system from Europe and go with that, French one will keep everyone happy because top ups.)
If the response to that is "Ahhh, future governments will be competent and not malicious" then fine, we can reinstate the NHS when we get permanent benign competent governments.
Ah French one because of top ups. Seriously give it up. Any solution to that has to involve removing the government from the healthcare. (Just pick the best system from Europe and go with that, French one will keep everyone happy because top ups.)
If the response to that is "Ahhh, future governments will be competent and not malicious" then fine, we can reinstate the NHS when we get permanent benign competent governments.
Electro1980 said:
11 years of real term cuts. How could the government possibly have supported the NHS more… [/sarcasm]
I’m sure someone will be along to tell us how no amount of money will help, but years of cuts is the simple reason. If this is a malicious attempt to destroy the NHS or a simple case of incompetence and ideology I don’t know, but it doesn’t matter. Funding was cut and cut, only to be increased in the face of a crisis, but not by enough to fix the years of underfunding, the fallout of a global pandemic or keep up with medical advances
https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/the-pas...
Edited by Electro1980 on Wednesday 27th March 07:54
If it falls by 0.07% annually for 5 years, falls by 0.03% annually for 6 years then rises by 2.05% annually for a further 3 years then the net result is a total rise PER CAPITA of 5.7%.
How is a rise also a cut?
oyster said:
Where are the cuts?
If it falls by 0.07% annually for 5 years, falls by 0.03% annually for 6 years then rises by 2.05% annually for a further 3 years then the net result is a total rise PER CAPITA of 5.7%.
How is a rise also a cut?
1) Even the years of 2.0%-ish before and after New Labour weren't really keeping with demand. The New Labour 5.0% figure includes a lot of 'restoration costs' to bring things up to a reasonable level.If it falls by 0.07% annually for 5 years, falls by 0.03% annually for 6 years then rises by 2.05% annually for a further 3 years then the net result is a total rise PER CAPITA of 5.7%.
How is a rise also a cut?
2) Those figures don't include the heavy cuts to non-NHS health and social care under the Coalition, as well as other effects of broader policy such as increased poverty, all of which increase load on the NHS while it also endures small real-term cuts.
3) Healthcare spending and delivery is inelastic. Spending today doesn't cure people who needed it yesterday. In fact provision denied in the short term begats more expense later on as mild conditions and ailments become chronic, increasing the 'cost per patient' figure. Reducing spending in the Austerity era created a huge medical, psychological, social and economic backlog that, if you want to sort it out, needs not only restoring spending and spending increases to their previous levels but increasing them further to do the work you 'put off .
Think of it like a car engine - you skimp on the maintenance to save money, don't change the oil and filter for 50,000 miles. Then it starts losing power, the oil pressure light starts flickering and the bearings start knocking. You can put in the fanciest oil and the newest, finest filter but if the bores are scored, the journals are worn and the valves gummed up then you'll never get things back to how they should be - you need to spend far more than the cost of 50,000 miles worth of oil and filters on a rebuild.
pavarotti1980 said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Yeah. I thought a hip op would be 50 grand. Not sure what my perception of healthcare prices has to do with whether the NHS should be scrapped.
The NHS should be scrapped because everyone agrees it's either maliciously run to collapse itself or incompetently run and it can't be topped up, so if it's not adequate for you there's nothing practical you can do about it.
French person: The government isn't spending enough for me I'll add 10% of my own cash.
British person: The government isn't spending enough for me I'll start a thred on Pistonheads.
You thought a hip replacement was £50k and you think you know how to solve healthcare provision hahahahaThe NHS should be scrapped because everyone agrees it's either maliciously run to collapse itself or incompetently run and it can't be topped up, so if it's not adequate for you there's nothing practical you can do about it.
French person: The government isn't spending enough for me I'll add 10% of my own cash.
British person: The government isn't spending enough for me I'll start a thred on Pistonheads.
Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Wednesday 27th March 11:31
The NHS being free at point of use does indeed create infinite demand and with people now being able to google everything many of us are convinced we are suffering from multiple ailments.
Also, there are more people in the country, more people to fix and also more dodgy people to treat the NHS as a bottomless money pit for compensation claims.
Estimates published last year put the total cost of outstanding compensation claims at £83bn.
Cash for crash as a scandal has nothing on what is going on with negligent NHS claims.
Also, there are more people in the country, more people to fix and also more dodgy people to treat the NHS as a bottomless money pit for compensation claims.
Estimates published last year put the total cost of outstanding compensation claims at £83bn.
Cash for crash as a scandal has nothing on what is going on with negligent NHS claims.
2xChevrons said:
oyster said:
Where are the cuts?
If it falls by 0.07% annually for 5 years, falls by 0.03% annually for 6 years then rises by 2.05% annually for a further 3 years then the net result is a total rise PER CAPITA of 5.7%.
How is a rise also a cut?
1) Even the years of 2.0%-ish before and after New Labour weren't really keeping with demand. The New Labour 5.0% figure includes a lot of 'restoration costs' to bring things up to a reasonable level.If it falls by 0.07% annually for 5 years, falls by 0.03% annually for 6 years then rises by 2.05% annually for a further 3 years then the net result is a total rise PER CAPITA of 5.7%.
How is a rise also a cut?
I'm not trying to defend the Tories by the way - I think NHS spending should go up too.
But I also like to correct people when they assert disingenuous statements as fact.
At least have a grown up debate based around facts and not lies.
The much bigger question is how do we pay for increased spend in the NHS?
Mythical growth in the economy?
More tax on top of the current highest burden of tax already?
More borrowing on top of the biggest debt pile ever?
More prioritisation of spend, such as axing the triple lock?
Another grown up debate we could do with.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...
Here's a chart to fill in some of the blanks regarding per capita spending. A couple of years out of date.
Here's a chart to fill in some of the blanks regarding per capita spending. A couple of years out of date.
The obvious missing information in this table is inflation.
Yes, the numbers are adjusted for population growth.
But it's silent on inflation. So a 0% cash increase per head is a *real terms* cut when inflation is anything above 0%.
And then, it is necessary to consider other factors:
- severity of need: that "adjusted" population isn't getting younger. They're getting older. Which means more demand. A further real terms (ignoring population numbers and prices)
- people aren't just getting older- they're living longer with more complex needs. The old days of elderly relatives going to hospital and coming out in a box 2 days later after "pneumonia" are gone.
- the health of the nation is getting worse: obiesety and diabetes in particular are often reported in the news.
This is not difficult stuff - even without exhaustive proof of my sources it's easy to see how a static cash funding per head of population equates to a real terms cut when it comes to what the NHS can deliver with it's funding.
11 years of real term cuts. How could the government possibly have supported the NHS more… [/sarcasm]
I’m sure someone will be along to tell us how no amount of money will help, but years of cuts is the simple reason. If this is a malicious attempt to destroy the NHS or a simple case of incompetence and ideology I don’t know, but it doesn’t matter. Funding was cut and cut, only to be increased in the face of a crisis, but not by enough to fix the years of underfunding, the fallout of a global pandemic or keep up with medical advances
https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/the-pas...
Where are the cuts?
If it falls by 0.07% annually for 5 years, falls by 0.03% annually for 6 years then rises by 2.05% annually for a further 3 years then the net result is a total rise PER CAPITA of 5.7%.
How is a rise also a cut?
Yes, the numbers are adjusted for population growth.
But it's silent on inflation. So a 0% cash increase per head is a *real terms* cut when inflation is anything above 0%.
And then, it is necessary to consider other factors:
- severity of need: that "adjusted" population isn't getting younger. They're getting older. Which means more demand. A further real terms (ignoring population numbers and prices)
- people aren't just getting older- they're living longer with more complex needs. The old days of elderly relatives going to hospital and coming out in a box 2 days later after "pneumonia" are gone.
- the health of the nation is getting worse: obiesety and diabetes in particular are often reported in the news.
This is not difficult stuff - even without exhaustive proof of my sources it's easy to see how a static cash funding per head of population equates to a real terms cut when it comes to what the NHS can deliver with it's funding.
oyster said:
Electro1980 said:
11 years of real term cuts. How could the government possibly have supported the NHS more… [/sarcasm]
I’m sure someone will be along to tell us how no amount of money will help, but years of cuts is the simple reason. If this is a malicious attempt to destroy the NHS or a simple case of incompetence and ideology I don’t know, but it doesn’t matter. Funding was cut and cut, only to be increased in the face of a crisis, but not by enough to fix the years of underfunding, the fallout of a global pandemic or keep up with medical advances
https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/the-pas...
Edited by Electro1980 on Wednesday 27th March 07:54
If it falls by 0.07% annually for 5 years, falls by 0.03% annually for 6 years then rises by 2.05% annually for a further 3 years then the net result is a total rise PER CAPITA of 5.7%.
How is a rise also a cut?
oyster said:
The graph has already been adjusted for demographics and population, so demand is already factored in.
I'm not trying to defend the Tories by the way - I think NHS spending should go up too.
But I also like to correct people when they assert disingenuous statements as fact.
At least have a grown up debate based around facts and not lies.
No lie given - apparently a misunderstanding.I'm not trying to defend the Tories by the way - I think NHS spending should go up too.
But I also like to correct people when they assert disingenuous statements as fact.
At least have a grown up debate based around facts and not lies.
The graph doesn't say what the figures are adjusted for; I assumed per capita as population grew over time.
I am very sceptical that the 'adjustment' allows for ageing population as well as a growing one, or other factors that raise demand such as overall health and welfare of the population, chronic conditions allowed to develop due to under-resourcing, pandemics etc.
And I doubt it accounts for inflation of costs, either.
You're not telling me that the 2021-onwards 2.0% figure actually means "2.0% relative growth allowing for all changed demand and economic inflation". It means spending per capital and nothing more.
Condi said:
Vanden Saab said:
200bhp said:
Its almost like the government those running itwant it to fail so they can say "we tried, but the only way to fix it is to privatise it"grrr tories
What’s happening is private centres are opening up and taking all the profitable services from the NHS along with the staff.
The staff get paid more. Then the NHS have to find staff to fill the gaps as if a service makes a loss guess what they still have to provide it (Hence why no private companies go for A&E and Maternity services)
The staff aren’t out there or they are but working with an agency as they get paid more. The NHS have to backfill now with Agency staff costing a lot more.
Shortly we will be seeing hearing possibly going back into the high street. It was very busy when NHS England were paying well for the service and specsavers et al jumped on board. Funding was then cut and the private sector said sorry no profit in this and back patients go to the NHS.
Now NHS E have realised it’s underfunded they are to increase funding and thus specsavers et al will suddenly be back in the game.
Anyway don’t worry folks because the public don’t like the NHS and hundreds of thousands of staff from the staff survey don’t like working there either.
oyster said:
The much bigger question is how do we pay for increased spend in the NHS?
Mythical growth in the economy?
More tax on top of the current highest burden of tax already?
More borrowing on top of the biggest debt pile ever?
More prioritisation of spend, such as axing the triple lock?
Another grown up debate we could do with.
I. Hopefully but unlikelyMythical growth in the economy?
More tax on top of the current highest burden of tax already?
More borrowing on top of the biggest debt pile ever?
More prioritisation of spend, such as axing the triple lock?
Another grown up debate we could do with.
Ii. Probably
Iii. Most certainly
Iv. Haha are you having a laugh? Tory voters would never let that happen, just as any other cut is fine until it affects "them".
Even a straight forward ban on junk food and multi buys has the Tories tied up in knots from lobbyists. Radical change is well beyond this or the next parliament imo.
I'm not sure the private sector has the skill to sort the NHS out - the USA healthcare model is shockingly wasteful, but it puts money in the right people's pockets. Also see dentistry for what happens when a quasi market is imposed on public goods.
The private sector can only use price to direct resources, yet it's clear that healthcare includes factors that aren't capture by a price.
One problem with UK politics is we get experts to review things and propose changes (see the Dillnot review of adult social care) but no one dares implement them.
The last few pages of this thread have shown how impossible it is to have a "grown up debate" when people are in possession of scant facts, or, more worryingly, cling to things they believe as true that are incorrect.
In my experience, things generally get ignored until the cost of not doing something gets bigger than the cost of doing something. This study inches the dial towards that point, but we're nowhere near yet.
Finally, I am amazed that no one has said "but the NHS has too many managers" yet...standards are slipping
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff