J Hunt and S Hawking - how do we know...
Discussion
steveatesh said:
Just as a point of interest is that figure charged by a private provider (£8,500 to £16,000) what they charge the NHS Or a single private patient? If the latter then it is highly likely that it will not be the cost to the NHS - discount for buying many is common enough.
Bevans three principals still apply, and every political party is committed to them. It's the free at the point of delivery which matters to most people, personally I don't give a flying f
k who does my operation, a private hospital or an NHS hospital, all I want as a patient is for it to be done quickly, done well, done right first time and be treated as a human being.
I stand to be corrected but wasn't the idea of private suppliers to the NHS well supported by Labour when they were in government? the principal is sound if it manifests as less tax having to be paid for the same or better service. Does anybody know, for example, whether a private supplier has to commit to NHS public sector pensions? Somehow I doubt it, which is a good thing in my book.
I've never understood why the left have a problem with private providers in the NHS as long as it's a universal service and free at the point of delivery. I have seen absolutely nothing to State the government is looking to privatise Health Services to an American system.
However, I am pleased when they take steps to save us money, and to improve efficiency and effectiveness.
Still ideology is a powerful thing isn't it.
Indeed. France, generally socialist -leaning, has one of, if not the best healthcare systems in the world. Publicly funded, but virtually all private provision. Bevans three principals still apply, and every political party is committed to them. It's the free at the point of delivery which matters to most people, personally I don't give a flying f
k who does my operation, a private hospital or an NHS hospital, all I want as a patient is for it to be done quickly, done well, done right first time and be treated as a human being.I stand to be corrected but wasn't the idea of private suppliers to the NHS well supported by Labour when they were in government? the principal is sound if it manifests as less tax having to be paid for the same or better service. Does anybody know, for example, whether a private supplier has to commit to NHS public sector pensions? Somehow I doubt it, which is a good thing in my book.
I've never understood why the left have a problem with private providers in the NHS as long as it's a universal service and free at the point of delivery. I have seen absolutely nothing to State the government is looking to privatise Health Services to an American system.
However, I am pleased when they take steps to save us money, and to improve efficiency and effectiveness.
Still ideology is a powerful thing isn't it.
Evil tories rich mates blah blah blah.
768 said:
Cherry picking in the context of literature reviews is an accusation normally applied when the methodology for choosing the literature isn't clear. And even then it doesn't mean there is an issue.
Hunt's free to ignore any wider consensus, any criticism of the report and other research when he says he chose to use Freemantle because it was the most comprehensive. At that point I think it's difficult to argue it's cherry picking unless you can clearly demonstrate there is a more comprehensive alternative.
Comprehensive. That's the word Hunt used. What on earth does that mean? The report has been criticised and even those who produced it included caveats. Perhaps that's what Hunt meant by comprehensive: it even pointed out where it was weak.Hunt's free to ignore any wider consensus, any criticism of the report and other research when he says he chose to use Freemantle because it was the most comprehensive. At that point I think it's difficult to argue it's cherry picking unless you can clearly demonstrate there is a more comprehensive alternative.
He's picked the one that suits him and then tried to justify it.
Chest Rockwell said:
Or even Broon's 1997 raid on pension funds. But I suppose all pensioners are Tories, eh?
all the people who work in/actually benefit from pensions are Tories. Its the biggest con. The Tory way. Why have an NHS when we can get ripped off by big insurance. The Tory way. Congratulations.deadslow said:
all the people who work in/actually benefit from pensions are Tories. Its the biggest con. The Tory way. Why have an NHS when we can get ripped off by big insurance. The Tory way. Congratulations.
The pension bks you spewed made no sense. But you actually do pay a health insurance called National Insurance. But on top you have to pay PAYE and other indirect taxation to fund an organisation bigger than the North Korean Army, the NHS. You have no choice. The Liebour way. Congratulations. bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I have to admit I had a similar reaction.
I've every admiration for Stephen Hawking as an expert in his field but, and happy to be corrected if people can point me to any detail, everything I've heard so far from Hawking doesn't seem to be evidence based but rather his opinion.
Interesting how the media frame it as yesterday on the radio it was reported as Hunt "attacking" Hawking for his comments.
His statement is entirely evidence based unlike Hunts disastrous policy which is based on him citing non peer reviewed research and cherry picking the conclusions he wanted disregarding the actual conclusions of the researchers. Hawking, unsurprisingly being a scientist has picked this out and exposes the sheer mendacity and incompetence of Hunt. Also unsurprisingly Hunt gets much support on this forum. It's a shame the issue seems of so little interest as everyone will require the health system at some point and at the moment it's in a state of collapse.I've every admiration for Stephen Hawking as an expert in his field but, and happy to be corrected if people can point me to any detail, everything I've heard so far from Hawking doesn't seem to be evidence based but rather his opinion.
Interesting how the media frame it as yesterday on the radio it was reported as Hunt "attacking" Hawking for his comments.
Hunt was wrong, in a nutshell he did not use the evidence fairly and Hawkins has called him out on it. That is all there is to this case if it were not for Hawkins to then say the Tories want a fully privatised system.
Clearly that is incorrect, but I see no issue with some elements being farmed out. The hip operation quoted costs, any private company gets the same paid as an NHS hospital would, the difference is that they can run their operation without the stupid systems to get in the way. They don't have to employ diversity officers and endless HR people, they don't have to pay inflated pensions for staff and that is how they make a profit on their services.
My wife is a senior finance person in the NHS and yet again they are undergoing another change that is driven by the wrong people who are back to empire building in the NHS as more staff equals more responsibility equals more money for them.
Take HR they look after around 1500 staff, they have 47 hr people. In they company I work for we have just over 1000 staff and we have 1 full time HR and two part time which equals two full timers. And these are not cheap people they employ.
Accountancy could be done much cheaper by an outside company, if they adopted one system throughout the whole NHS for payment and reporting, but everyone seems to do their own thing. The list is endless but the public do not care who does what so long as it is done quickly and they can get back to work or good health and without a private insurance based system as in the states.
The sharp end is where the pressure is, the back office functions is where the waste is.
Clearly that is incorrect, but I see no issue with some elements being farmed out. The hip operation quoted costs, any private company gets the same paid as an NHS hospital would, the difference is that they can run their operation without the stupid systems to get in the way. They don't have to employ diversity officers and endless HR people, they don't have to pay inflated pensions for staff and that is how they make a profit on their services.
My wife is a senior finance person in the NHS and yet again they are undergoing another change that is driven by the wrong people who are back to empire building in the NHS as more staff equals more responsibility equals more money for them.
Take HR they look after around 1500 staff, they have 47 hr people. In they company I work for we have just over 1000 staff and we have 1 full time HR and two part time which equals two full timers. And these are not cheap people they employ.
Accountancy could be done much cheaper by an outside company, if they adopted one system throughout the whole NHS for payment and reporting, but everyone seems to do their own thing. The list is endless but the public do not care who does what so long as it is done quickly and they can get back to work or good health and without a private insurance based system as in the states.
The sharp end is where the pressure is, the back office functions is where the waste is.
Chest Rockwell said:
deadslow said:
all the people who work in/actually benefit from pensions are Tories. Its the biggest con. The Tory way. Why have an NHS when we can get ripped off by big insurance. The Tory way. Congratulations.
The pension bks you spewed made no sense. But you actually do pay a health insurance called National Insurance. But on top you have to pay PAYE and other indirect taxation to fund an organisation bigger than the North Korean Army, the NHS. You have no choice. The Liebour way. Congratulations. spaximus said:
Hunt was wrong, in a nutshell he did not use the evidence fairly and Hawkins has called him out on it. That is all there is to this case if it were not for Hawkins to then say the Tories want a fully privatised system.
Clearly that is incorrect, but I see no issue with some elements being farmed out. The hip operation quoted costs, any private company gets the same paid as an NHS hospital would, the difference is that they can run their operation without the stupid systems to get in the way. They don't have to employ diversity officers and endless HR people, they don't have to pay inflated pensions for staff and that is how they make a profit on their services.
My wife is a senior finance person in the NHS and yet again they are undergoing another change that is driven by the wrong people who are back to empire building in the NHS as more staff equals more responsibility equals more money for them.
Take HR they look after around 1500 staff, they have 47 hr people. In they company I work for we have just over 1000 staff and we have 1 full time HR and two part time which equals two full timers. And these are not cheap people they employ.
Accountancy could be done much cheaper by an outside company, if they adopted one system throughout the whole NHS for payment and reporting, but everyone seems to do their own thing. The list is endless but the public do not care who does what so long as it is done quickly and they can get back to work or good health and without a private insurance based system as in the states.
The sharp end is where the pressure is, the back office functions is where the waste is.
Clearly that is incorrect, but I see no issue with some elements being farmed out. The hip operation quoted costs, any private company gets the same paid as an NHS hospital would, the difference is that they can run their operation without the stupid systems to get in the way. They don't have to employ diversity officers and endless HR people, they don't have to pay inflated pensions for staff and that is how they make a profit on their services.
My wife is a senior finance person in the NHS and yet again they are undergoing another change that is driven by the wrong people who are back to empire building in the NHS as more staff equals more responsibility equals more money for them.
Take HR they look after around 1500 staff, they have 47 hr people. In they company I work for we have just over 1000 staff and we have 1 full time HR and two part time which equals two full timers. And these are not cheap people they employ.
Accountancy could be done much cheaper by an outside company, if they adopted one system throughout the whole NHS for payment and reporting, but everyone seems to do their own thing. The list is endless but the public do not care who does what so long as it is done quickly and they can get back to work or good health and without a private insurance based system as in the states.
The sharp end is where the pressure is, the back office functions is where the waste is.
968 said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I have to admit I had a similar reaction.
I've every admiration for Stephen Hawking as an expert in his field but, and happy to be corrected if people can point me to any detail, everything I've heard so far from Hawking doesn't seem to be evidence based but rather his opinion.
Interesting how the media frame it as yesterday on the radio it was reported as Hunt "attacking" Hawking for his comments.
His statement is entirely evidence based unlike Hunts disastrous policy which is based on him citing non peer reviewed research and cherry picking the conclusions he wanted disregarding the actual conclusions of the researchers. Hawking, unsurprisingly being a scientist has picked this out and exposes the sheer mendacity and incompetence of Hunt. Also unsurprisingly Hunt gets much support on this forum. It's a shame the issue seems of so little interest as everyone will require the health system at some point and at the moment it's in a state of collapse.I've every admiration for Stephen Hawking as an expert in his field but, and happy to be corrected if people can point me to any detail, everything I've heard so far from Hawking doesn't seem to be evidence based but rather his opinion.
Interesting how the media frame it as yesterday on the radio it was reported as Hunt "attacking" Hawking for his comments.
My point wasn't about Hawking being right or wrong, only that it's not good when the media basically go "Oh look a famous person disagreed with a politician, the famous person must be correct".
Err... All I asked was how do we know that the voice that we regard as the voice of Hawking is really expressing his thoughts and views rather than some interested individual who has tampered with the voice generator? Hawking is in no position to protest is he?
Given that Hawking's views are held by many in a sort of messianic reverence, how tempting it must be to hijack his voicebox to propound a particular view which is not in accord with Hawking's own views.
Sorry I asked...
Given that Hawking's views are held by many in a sort of messianic reverence, how tempting it must be to hijack his voicebox to propound a particular view which is not in accord with Hawking's own views.
Sorry I asked...
deadslow said:
Chest Rockwell said:
Or even Broon's 1997 raid on pension funds. But I suppose all pensioners are Tories, eh?
all the people who work in/actually benefit from pensions are Tories. Its the biggest con. The Tory way. Why have an NHS when we can get ripped off by big insurance. The Tory way. Congratulations. so early in this thread...968 said:
His statement is entirely evidence based unlike Hunts disastrous policy which is based on him citing non peer reviewed research and cherry picking the conclusions he wanted disregarding the actual conclusions of the researchers. Hawking, unsurprisingly being a scientist has picked this out and exposes the sheer mendacity and incompetence of Hunt. Also unsurprisingly Hunt gets much support on this forum.
He does? From who?968 said:
It's a shame the issue seems of so little interest as everyone will require the health system at some point and at the moment it's in a state of collapse.
Despite seemingly endless increases in money thrown at it, year after year.It's almost as if a fundamental rethink about what the NHS does is required, rather than the usual calls for more and more 'investment'.
sidicks said:
Despite seemingly endless increases in money thrown at it, year after year.
It's almost as if a fundamental rethink about what the NHS does is required, rather than the usual calls for more and more 'investment'.
Hyperbolic nonsense. The money isn't "endless" or even proportionately nearly what should be spent on it compared to other health systems in developed countries. And the proportion spent per GDP is decreasing. It's in a state of collapse because staffing is insufficient many are leaving and recruitment is becoming more difficult. It's almost as if a fundamental rethink about what the NHS does is required, rather than the usual calls for more and more 'investment'.
It's in a state of collapse because the population is getting older and sicker, and we are intervening more to keep people alive and functional for longer.
I'd be interested to hear what you think the NHS should be for and what it shouldn't. As someone who's worked overseas, be careful what you wish for, and start saving because the cost of your healthcare is far higher than you think.
sidicks said:
spaximus said:
Hunt was wrong, in a nutshell he did not use the evidence fairly and Hawkins has called him out on it. That is all there is to this case if it were not for Hawkins to then say the Tories want a fully privatised system.
Clearly that is incorrect, but I see no issue with some elements being farmed out. The hip operation quoted costs, any private company gets the same paid as an NHS hospital would, the difference is that they can run their operation without the stupid systems to get in the way. They don't have to employ diversity officers and endless HR people, they don't have to pay inflated pensions for staff and that is how they make a profit on their services.
My wife is a senior finance person in the NHS and yet again they are undergoing another change that is driven by the wrong people who are back to empire building in the NHS as more staff equals more responsibility equals more money for them.
Take HR they look after around 1500 staff, they have 47 hr people. In they company I work for we have just over 1000 staff and we have 1 full time HR and two part time which equals two full timers. And these are not cheap people they employ.
Accountancy could be done much cheaper by an outside company, if they adopted one system throughout the whole NHS for payment and reporting, but everyone seems to do their own thing. The list is endless but the public do not care who does what so long as it is done quickly and they can get back to work or good health and without a private insurance based system as in the states.
The sharp end is where the pressure is, the back office functions is where the waste is.
Clearly that is incorrect, but I see no issue with some elements being farmed out. The hip operation quoted costs, any private company gets the same paid as an NHS hospital would, the difference is that they can run their operation without the stupid systems to get in the way. They don't have to employ diversity officers and endless HR people, they don't have to pay inflated pensions for staff and that is how they make a profit on their services.
My wife is a senior finance person in the NHS and yet again they are undergoing another change that is driven by the wrong people who are back to empire building in the NHS as more staff equals more responsibility equals more money for them.
Take HR they look after around 1500 staff, they have 47 hr people. In they company I work for we have just over 1000 staff and we have 1 full time HR and two part time which equals two full timers. And these are not cheap people they employ.
Accountancy could be done much cheaper by an outside company, if they adopted one system throughout the whole NHS for payment and reporting, but everyone seems to do their own thing. The list is endless but the public do not care who does what so long as it is done quickly and they can get back to work or good health and without a private insurance based system as in the states.
The sharp end is where the pressure is, the back office functions is where the waste is.
Another example. A family member used to work directly for the NHS in developing and delivering induction and compliance training courses. However, the trust she worked for didn't actually use that department for training its own staff - it bought in the same service from a neighbouring trust instead as it was somehow more profitable to do so...
They were then separated off as a CIC, providing exactly the same services to the same trusts. This was supposedly in the name of efficiency, but made no difference at all as the senior management weren't interested in many basic cost efficiencies (changing to cheaper suppliers for the same products, etc). Even simple changes like optimising routes taken to visit sites were blocked - a daft move when you cover all of Essex and beyond.
She's since moved to another CIC providing very similar services, but with a far more businesslike approach. Management who actually listen to staff feedback, for a start.
Luckily for he, due to the unique way the NHS works, she's maintained her NHS pension rights throughout all these changes. She's the first to agree how lucky she is in that respect, but takes the view that she's only getting what she was promised when she joined the scheme at 18 as a nursing assistant.
Surely training should be developed and delivered by a single national group, reducing costs? Although I guess there's the risk that someone like Capita would get the deal, which would somehow result in poorer service and higher costs...
motco said:
Err... All I asked was how do we know that the voice that we regard as the voice of Hawking is really expressing his thoughts and views rather than some interested individual who has tampered with the voice generator? Hawking is in no position to protest is he?
Given that Hawking's views are held by many in a sort of messianic reverence, how tempting it must be to hijack his voicebox to propound a particular view which is not in accord with Hawking's own views.
Sorry I asked...
1 order placed ... should be with you tomorrowGiven that Hawking's views are held by many in a sort of messianic reverence, how tempting it must be to hijack his voicebox to propound a particular view which is not in accord with Hawking's own views.
Sorry I asked...
T6 vanman said:
motco said:
Err... All I asked was how do we know that the voice that we regard as the voice of Hawking is really expressing his thoughts and views rather than some interested individual who has tampered with the voice generator? Hawking is in no position to protest is he?
Given that Hawking's views are held by many in a sort of messianic reverence, how tempting it must be to hijack his voicebox to propound a particular view which is not in accord with Hawking's own views.
Sorry I asked...
1 order placed ... should be with you tomorrowGiven that Hawking's views are held by many in a sort of messianic reverence, how tempting it must be to hijack his voicebox to propound a particular view which is not in accord with Hawking's own views.
Sorry I asked...
and one for the cat...
968 said:
Hyperbolic nonsense. The money isn't "endless" or even proportionately nearly what should be spent on it compared to other health systems in developed countries. And the proportion spent per GDP is decreasing. It's in a state of collapse because staffing is insufficient many are leaving and recruitment is becoming more difficult.
It's in a state of collapse because the population is getting older and sicker, and we are intervening more to keep people alive and functional for longer.
In real terms we spend 10 times as much on the NHS as we did in the 1950s.It's in a state of collapse because the population is getting older and sicker, and we are intervening more to keep people alive and functional for longer.
In the 1950s around 11% of the public services budget was spent on Health. In 2015-16 it was almost 30%.
968 said:
I'd be interested to hear what you think the NHS should be for and what it shouldn't. As someone who's worked overseas, be careful what you wish for, and start saving because the cost of your healthcare is far higher than you think.
I'd be interested which of the other public services should suffer bigger and bigger cuts to allow the increased spending that you desire for the NHS - education, pensions, welfare, defence etc?Accepting the obviously reality that the government only has so much money to spend and hence has to prioritise that spending, making calls on what the NHS should and shouldn't fund is the only credible way of taking things forward. Of course the NHS does this already, it just needs to make some bigger decisions!
Edited by sidicks on Monday 28th August 13:49
sidicks said:
968 said:
Hyperbolic nonsense. The money isn't "endless" or even proportionately nearly what should be spent on it compared to other health systems in developed countries. And the proportion spent per GDP is decreasing. It's in a state of collapse because staffing is insufficient many are leaving and recruitment is becoming more difficult.
It's in a state of collapse because the population is getting older and sicker, and we are intervening more to keep people alive and functional for longer.
[b]In real terms we spend 10 times as much on the NHS as we did in the 1950s.It's in a state of collapse because the population is getting older and sicker, and we are intervening more to keep people alive and functional for longer.
In the 1950s around 11% of the public services budget was spent on Health. In 2015-16 it was almost 30%.
968 said:
I'd be interested to hear what you think the NHS should be for and what it shouldn't. As someone who's worked overseas, be careful what you wish for, and start saving because the cost of your healthcare is far higher than you think.
I'd be interested which of the other public services should suffer bigger and bigger cuts to allow the increased spending that you desire for the NHS - education, pensions, welfare, defence etc?Accepting the obviously reality that the government only has so much money to spend and hence has to prioritise that spending, making calls on what the NHS should and shouldn't fund is the only credible way of taking things forward. Of course the NHS does this already, it just needs to make some bigger decisions!
I'd also expect it to have increased considerably as there are far more essential treatments being provided nowadays, let alone the wastage in the current system.
Yes, the NHS does require massive reform to work properly and no, I don't see any party having the brains or guts to do it properly.
I'd also suggest that, perhaps, proper reviews of how public services are delivered needs to happen before continuing with spending cuts.
Police and ambulance services here in Essex are stretched way beyond what is acceptable. The latest proposal to provide police cover for the nearest town is to recruit 2 special constables providing 20 hours a week each, every week!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff