J Hunt and S Hawking - how do we know...
Discussion
rscott said:
How does spending per head of population compare with the 1950s? I'd consider that far more relevant than % of total public spending.
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!
You mean those spending 'cuts' where total spending increases?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!
Chest Rockwell said:
The pension b
ks 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.
Typing liebour doesnt make you look like a bigger moron than you actually are, at all. It's very original, was never done before.ks 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. As for Hawking, given his condition i guess that he used quite a few health organizations and
Knows what he's on about. Hunt on the other hand is demonstrably out of depth, co-authored 2005 paper on introduction of private insurance companies into the NHS, and was laughed at by torries who actually have a clue about health care provision.
Then again on NPE its rather fashionable to whine about cost of NHS regardless that its one of least costly health provision systems anywhere.
sidicks said:
rscott said:
How does spending per head of population compare with the 1950s? I'd consider that far more relevant than % of total public spending.
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!
You mean those spending 'cuts' where total spending increases?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!
http://www.essex.pcc.police.uk/news/the-funding-of...
All I know is that fewer police are available around here and that NHS services are not able to cope with their loads. Case in point - waiting times for an appointment date (not the appointment itself, just notification of the date of it) in at least two departments of my local hospital are in excess of 20 weeks. Entirely down to lack of resources to actually see the patients.
My only option for treatment is a 150 mile round trip to Papworth instead. Even they're overwhelmed - a 4-6 week followup appointment is actually booked for 10-12 weeks because they're under resourced.
sidicks said:
rscott said:
How does spending per head of population compare with the 1950s? I'd consider that far more relevant than % of total public spending.
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!
You mean those spending 'cuts' where total spending increases?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!
Increase in spending didn't keep up with increase in demand. So, it's an effective cut. Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?
jjlynn27 said:
Typing liebour doesnt make you look like a bigger moron than you actually are, at all. It's very original, was never done before.
As for Hawking, given his condition i guess that he used quite a few health organizations and
Knows what he's on about. Hunt on the other hand is demonstrably out of depth, co-authored 2005 paper on introduction of private insurance companies into the NHS, and was laughed at by torries who actually have a clue about health care provision.
Then again on NPE its rather fashionable to whine about cost of NHS regardless that its one of least costly health provision systems anywhere.
And yet, in real terms, it costs 10x what it did 50 years ago and is (seemingly) always in a 'state of crisis'.As for Hawking, given his condition i guess that he used quite a few health organizations and
Knows what he's on about. Hunt on the other hand is demonstrably out of depth, co-authored 2005 paper on introduction of private insurance companies into the NHS, and was laughed at by torries who actually have a clue about health care provision.
Then again on NPE its rather fashionable to whine about cost of NHS regardless that its one of least costly health provision systems anywhere.
Which other public services are you proposing to cut to provide increased funding to the NHS? It doesn't matter how 'efficient' of 'good value' it is, if the money required to fund it isn't available!
Edited by sidicks on Monday 28th August 14:10
jjlynn27 said:
Why keep pushing that line?
Increase in spending didn't keep up with increase in demand. So, it's an effective cut. Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?
And if the money isn't there to fund it, then we will have to reduce the services it provides. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?Increase in spending didn't keep up with increase in demand. So, it's an effective cut. Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?
sidicks said:
jjlynn27 said:
Why keep pushing that line?
Increase in spending didn't keep up with increase in demand. So, it's an effective cut. Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?
And if the money isn't there to fund it, then we will have to reduce the services it provides. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?Increase in spending didn't keep up with increase in demand. So, it's an effective cut. Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?
Feel free to supply a list of genuine medical conditions which the NHS should stop treating.
rscott said:
At what point do we decide services have been cut enough and perhaps more money needs to be provided?
Feel free to provide details of where these untapped tens of billions are located, given that we are already overspending by £50bn per annum in a period of what some would have you believe is 'austerity'.Added to unfunded debt of approaching £10 trillion in various forms...
rscott said:
Feel free to supply a list of genuine medical conditions which the NHS should stop treating.
Are you suggesting that the NHS currently only provides 'essential' services?Edited by sidicks on Monday 28th August 15:25
sidicks said:
rscott said:
At what point do we decide services have been cut enough and perhaps more money needs to be provided?
Feel free to provide details of where these untapped tens of billions are located, given that we are already overspending by £50bn per annum in a period of what some would have you believe is 'austerity'.Added to unfunded debt of approaching £10 trillion in various forms...
rscott said:
Feel free to supply a list of genuine medical conditions which the NHS should stop treating.
Are you suggesting that the NHS currently only provides 'essential' services?Edited by sidicks on Monday 28th August 15:25
And no, I never suggested your statement in bold. That would appear to be a comprehension failure on your part.
There are already genuine medical conditions for which treatment funding has been reduced - eg iVF is now very limited/not available at all depending on area. NHS cosmetic breast surgery is restricted to those requiring post surgery reconstruction and in very limited cases where it can be shown to affect health.
Where else are you suggesting the NHS should cut funding?
rscott said:
Might be revolutionary, but I believe it's actually possible to raise additional funds by increasing taxation. Not that I want to pay more, but accept that it may be necessary if we want improvements in services.
Which taxes would you increase and by how much? How much would actually be raised?How often can you realistically keep doing this?
rscott said:
And no, I never suggested your statement in bold. That would appear to be a comprehension failure on your part.
There are already genuine medical conditions for which treatment funding has been reduced - eg iVF is now very limited/not available at all depending on area. NHS cosmetic breast surgery is restricted to those requiring post surgery reconstruction and in very limited cases where it can be shown to affect health.
Where else are you suggesting the NHS should cut funding?
Maybe we should ask the experts?There are already genuine medical conditions for which treatment funding has been reduced - eg iVF is now very limited/not available at all depending on area. NHS cosmetic breast surgery is restricted to those requiring post surgery reconstruction and in very limited cases where it can be shown to affect health.
Where else are you suggesting the NHS should cut funding?
Certainly my experience of business is that, when spending exceeds income (and where income can't be increased easily) then spending needs to be reduced somewhere, so priority calls are made.
sidicks said:
rscott said:
Might be revolutionary, but I believe it's actually possible to raise additional funds by increasing taxation. Not that I want to pay more, but accept that it may be necessary if we want improvements in services.
Which taxes would you increase and by how much? How much would actually be raised?How often can you realistically keep doing this?
rscott said:
And no, I never suggested your statement in bold. That would appear to be a comprehension failure on your part.
There are already genuine medical conditions for which treatment funding has been reduced - eg iVF is now very limited/not available at all depending on area. NHS cosmetic breast surgery is restricted to those requiring post surgery reconstruction and in very limited cases where it can be shown to affect health.
Where else are you suggesting the NHS should cut funding?
Maybe we should ask the experts?There are already genuine medical conditions for which treatment funding has been reduced - eg iVF is now very limited/not available at all depending on area. NHS cosmetic breast surgery is restricted to those requiring post surgery reconstruction and in very limited cases where it can be shown to affect health.
Where else are you suggesting the NHS should cut funding?
Certainly my experience of business is that, when spending exceeds income (and where income can't be increased easily) then spending needs to be reduced somewhere, so priority calls are made.
It's clear though that many public services aren't able to provide the services required, so we either accept every decreasing levels of service or that tax changes are required to increase the funding, along with complete reform of the methods of supplying those services.
rscott said:
No idea about details of tax changes. I'd leave that to the experts.
It's clear though that many public services aren't able to provide the services required, so we either accept every decreasing levels of service or that tax changes are required to increase the funding, along with complete reform of the methods of supplying those services.
I think it would be fairer to say 'requested' not 'required'. Too many people expect too much of public services because 'someone else' will pay for it, removing all responsibility from the person receiving that service.It's clear though that many public services aren't able to provide the services required, so we either accept every decreasing levels of service or that tax changes are required to increase the funding, along with complete reform of the methods of supplying those services.
There should be plenty of money to fund what is required, just not the 'nice to haves' that people have been led to expect.
I agree with most of the remainder of your final paragraph.
rscott said:
...Where else are you suggesting the NHS should cut funding?
Total reset required. Cut all of it from the "free" list apart from A&E (and work on claiming that back for the majority of instances post treatment).Then add back in on a fully costed basis (fiscally and on treatment benefit/efficacy).
If we want more services, there's plenty of scope for a party to start up offering everything we want for free. Along with the 98%+ tax rate for everyone that will be needed. And see how many votes they get.
The NHS was started with good intentions but on false premises. As soon as it became apparent that the premises were false it should have been paused. And the longer we go on ignoring this, the more painful it will get when the wheels fully fall off
Murph7355 said:
Total reset required. Cut all of it from the "free" list apart from A&E (and work on claiming that back for the majority of instances post treatment).
Then add back in on a fully costed basis (fiscally and on treatment benefit/efficacy).
If we want more services, there's plenty of scope for a party to start up offering everything we want for free. Along with the 98%+ tax rate for everyone that will be needed. And see how many votes they get.
The NHS was started with good intentions but on false premises. As soon as it became apparent that the premises were false it should have been paused. And the longer we go on ignoring this, the more painful it will get when the wheels fully fall off
So a 98% tax rate, eh? Well, you've posted it so you must have worked it out. Then add back in on a fully costed basis (fiscally and on treatment benefit/efficacy).
If we want more services, there's plenty of scope for a party to start up offering everything we want for free. Along with the 98%+ tax rate for everyone that will be needed. And see how many votes they get.
The NHS was started with good intentions but on false premises. As soon as it became apparent that the premises were false it should have been paused. And the longer we go on ignoring this, the more painful it will get when the wheels fully fall off
The NHS was started with good intentions, to provide health care for everyone and not just the rich. It fitted perfectly for the time. So I'm not sure which premise you consider false. Do you?
One of the problems is that the NHS is now party political. If you are on the right then it is too much to fork out for the sick if they are poor. If you are on the left, then everyone should have the same level of service. What we need is solely for the NHS to be move from being an idealistic target and then work out what to do with it.
At the moment it is remarkably efficient, despite what those politically convinced say. For G7 countries we come sixth for overall spend and fifth for state expenditure as a % of GDP. So we must be doing something right. Perhaps if we went with Germany and spent over 9% on state support rather than the under 8% that we do, our health service might be as good as theirs. All it takes for Germany is a bit more investment.
The Yanks pay over 16% of GDP on health care. We struggle to under 10.
There are lots of ways of viewing the data of course, but much depends on what glasses you are wearing at the time.
There are lots of way of gaining data. Being partial, as Hunt is according to Hawking - and who is likely to know more about reading research - is not the answer. Hunt wants to privatise even more of the NHS. He's said as much. Using just the data that supports one's arguments and ignoring those that contradict is the method of religionists.
Derek Smith said:
So a 98% tax rate, eh? Well, you've posted it so you must have worked it out. ...
Nope.However with a never ending list of treatments and an ever increasing number of people wanting to be treated the NHS could suck up every penny that was thrown at it and still want for more.
I guess I should have noted 100% but even the most tax heavy govt tends to leave us with something in our back pockets
Derek Smith said:
The NHS was started with good intentions, to provide health care for everyone and not just the rich. It fitted perfectly for the time. So I'm not sure which premise you consider false. Do you?...
The demand on the NHS would fall as we all got healthier.Failure to design in marked increases in longevity.
Failure to design in an ever increasing number of treatments.
Failure to design in an ever increasing population.
I don't "blame" Bevan for these things. As you note, it was born from good intentions. But also as you note it fitted perfectly for the time. Time has moved on and it cannot continue as it has forever.
(Bit less condescension would be a bonus btw
)Derek Smith said:
One of the problems is that the NHS is now party political. If you are on the right then it is too much to fork out for the sick if they are poor. If you are on the left, then everyone should have the same level of service. What we need is solely for the NHS to be move from being an idealistic target and then work out what to do with it. ...
I agree.Derek Smith said:
...For G7 countries we come sixth for overall spend and fifth for state expenditure as a % of GDP. So we must be doing something right. Perhaps if we went with Germany and spent over 9% on state support rather than the under 8% that we do, our health service might be as good as theirs. All it takes for Germany is a bit more investment.
The Yanks pay over 16% of GDP on health care. We struggle to under 10.
There are lots of ways of viewing the data of course, but much depends on what glasses you are wearing at the time.
Indeed there is.The Yanks pay over 16% of GDP on health care. We struggle to under 10.
There are lots of ways of viewing the data of course, but much depends on what glasses you are wearing at the time.
Do you think the US system is preferable to our own?
How much do Germans rely on private health care?
I am not a fan of looking at one spend statistic in isolation as governments do not just spend on one area. If we do not like the balance we can vote for a party more in tune with our beliefs or we can leave. My view is it shouldn't get any more than any other service dropped on it until the items you note above (that I noted I agree with) are addressed.
Derek Smith said:
...
There are lots of way of gaining data. Being partial, as Hunt is according to Hawking - and who is likely to know more about reading research - is not the answer. Hunt wants to privatise even more of the NHS. He's said as much. Using just the data that supports one's arguments and ignoring those that contradict is the method of religionists.
Who is likely to have access to more data on the internal workings and machinations of the NHS?There are lots of way of gaining data. Being partial, as Hunt is according to Hawking - and who is likely to know more about reading research - is not the answer. Hunt wants to privatise even more of the NHS. He's said as much. Using just the data that supports one's arguments and ignoring those that contradict is the method of religionists.
I'm no Hunt fan. Don't know the bloke. He handles things badly on the face of it, but then he has a tough hand to play and I do think there is plenty of bs thrown at him to derail what might be sensible policies through vested interests.
However, I also don't believe that expertise in one field is certainty of the same in another, or that it should automatically convey deference in another.
btw, ref "privatisation" - so what? As you note, time to stop using the NHS as a political football and do what is right for the service. Even if that means privatisation, no matter how much this offends those with a "non-private at all costs" ideology
768 said:
fblm said:
jjlynn27 said:
Increase in spending didn't keep up with increase in demand. So, it's an effective cut.
Yeah, yeah, this is PH, I am the boss.
can get them. OK, ready?You are stacking shelves at the supermarket. You do 4 shelves a shift for which you get £40. Now, Pjotr, your boss says; 'hey I'll increase your pay to £50 but now you need to do 8 shelves, take as long as you like.
If there is any part that's confusing do let me know.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff