Join the Labour Party and save your country!

1…179180182184185…506

Comments

  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    I ve linked to 2 reports that say the NHS isnt the world class organisation you claim it is, so why are they so different?

    Caneston? i like that... it doesnt work either lol!
    Good point - clearly depends on the survey. Although as I've mentioned before the one I posted was a relative one - we may or may not be world class but we're more world class than some of our esteemed neighbours who many people simply assume have better systems than we do. That survey is evidence that it is not necessarily the case.

    Anyhow, I'm waiting for some informed and on-topic comments backed up by a bit of evidence from Mr. ambulance driver. I'm not holding my breath on this one though.
    The survey is about how the US health system compares to other OECD countries. And it was produced by a think tank that is lobbying for improvement to the US healthcare system in terms of reduced cost and improved coverage, standard of care and outcomes. I think that colours the results quite significantly. Surely you read the report that you posted, Stevo? ;)
    I did indeed read it.

    It certainly colours the report against the US - it came bottom. But there is nothing to suggest that it is biased in favour of the UK, or against some of our esteemed EU partners who come out worse than we do. Hence it was a valid survey to post from a UK perspective compared to several other countries :)

    Stevo, you r not being objective, ok you ve a survey that supports your pov and i acknowledge that but look at the round, 2 other surveys point that things are not sooo rosy, you should consider those too.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,209
    Two different things: NHS as compared to other healthcare systems, and NHS as compared to what we would like it to be.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,846
    edited July 2017
    mamba80 wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    I ve linked to 2 reports that say the NHS isnt the world class organisation you claim it is, so why are they so different?

    Caneston? i like that... it doesnt work either lol!
    Good point - clearly depends on the survey. Although as I've mentioned before the one I posted was a relative one - we may or may not be world class but we're more world class than some of our esteemed neighbours who many people simply assume have better systems than we do. That survey is evidence that it is not necessarily the case.

    Anyhow, I'm waiting for some informed and on-topic comments backed up by a bit of evidence from Mr. ambulance driver. I'm not holding my breath on this one though.
    The survey is about how the US health system compares to other OECD countries. And it was produced by a think tank that is lobbying for improvement to the US healthcare system in terms of reduced cost and improved coverage, standard of care and outcomes. I think that colours the results quite significantly. Surely you read the report that you posted, Stevo? ;)
    I did indeed read it.

    It certainly colours the report against the US - it came bottom. But there is nothing to suggest that it is biased in favour of the UK, or against some of our esteemed EU partners who come out worse than we do. Hence it was a valid survey to post from a UK perspective compared to several other countries :)

    Stevo, you r not being objective, ok you ve a survey that supports your pov and i acknowledge that but look at the round, 2 other surveys point that things are not sooo rosy, you should consider those too.
    No, I'm being relative.

    Read what I've said from the start - its about how we compare to other healthcare systems, not how we are in absolute terms. I said clearly that the NHS got a far from perfect report.

    RJS gets my point although the 'how we would like it to be' is something that we will probably never attain.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    i dont agree with rst, all the reports compare the nhs with other health systems.
    as i said an insurance based element is where we need to be heading, the expense and treatments available in 2017 are not comparable to 1947, we need a new funding stream but pls dont kid ourselves we are world leaders, we are not.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,846
    mamba80 wrote:
    i dont agree with rst, all the reports compare the nhs with other health systems.
    as i said an insurance based element is where we need to be heading, the expense and treatments available in 2017 are not comparable to 1947, we need a new funding stream but pls dont kid ourselves we are world leaders, we are not.
    Insurance based - like the US?
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    All healthcare is insurance.

    It's just whether you pay a private company for it or the state pays for it, or the state pays the private company for it.

    it's all the same sh!t eventually.

    The only way you support things like heath or fire is an insurance model.
    _
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,846
    I'm asking mamba what he means.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    http://about-france.com/health-care.htm

    http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resour ... models.php

    believe its known as the Bismark model inc certain contributions, which we do already for prescriptions, dental and eye care, why not GP visits etc..... the US model seems to be if you can afford the premiums, all good, if not, you die, so no.

    Once profit is introduced, into basic Gov functions, care goes out the window, as can been seen with the Grenfell fire, profit overrides safety or care.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,846
    mamba80 wrote:
    http://about-france.com/health-care.htm

    http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resour ... models.php

    believe its known as the Bismark model inc certain contributions, which we do already for prescriptions, dental and eye care, why not GP visits etc..... the US model seems to be if you can afford the premiums, all good, if not, you die, so no.

    Once profit is introduced, into basic Gov functions, care goes out the window, as can been seen with the Grenfell fire, profit overrides safety or care.
    Interesting link that second one. I suppose the debate about what sort of model we should have is a separate one from this line of argument.

    That said, disagree with your point about the profit motive. It's already in the NHS and many other healthcare systems in the form of private subcontractors. The advantage is of course the incentive to be efficient and manage costs.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,065
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    http://about-france.com/health-care.htm

    http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resour ... models.php

    believe its known as the Bismark model inc certain contributions, which we do already for prescriptions, dental and eye care, why not GP visits etc..... the US model seems to be if you can afford the premiums, all good, if not, you die, so no.

    Once profit is introduced, into basic Gov functions, care goes out the window, as can been seen with the Grenfell fire, profit overrides safety or care.
    Interesting link that second one. I suppose the debate about what sort of model we should have is a separate one from this line of argument.

    That said, disagree with your point about the profit motive. It's already in the NHS and many other healthcare systems in the form of private subcontractors. The advantage is of course the incentive to be efficient and manage costs.
    ...to increase profits.
    If you believe that going to a GP tomorrow on the same basis as going to a dentist today is good for the welfare of the Country then good for you. Just pray the dollars keep rolling in to cover private care. That is the future.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,846
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    http://about-france.com/health-care.htm

    http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resour ... models.php

    believe its known as the Bismark model inc certain contributions, which we do already for prescriptions, dental and eye care, why not GP visits etc..... the US model seems to be if you can afford the premiums, all good, if not, you die, so no.

    Once profit is introduced, into basic Gov functions, care goes out the window, as can been seen with the Grenfell fire, profit overrides safety or care.
    Interesting link that second one. I suppose the debate about what sort of model we should have is a separate one from this line of argument.

    That said, disagree with your point about the profit motive. It's already in the NHS and many other healthcare systems in the form of private subcontractors. The advantage is of course the incentive to be efficient and manage costs.
    ...to increase profits.
    If you believe that going to a GP tomorrow on the same basis as going to a dentist today is good for the welfare of the Country then good for you. Just pray the dollars keep rolling in to cover private care. That is the future.
    Obviously.

    But you need that incentive to be efficient and manage costs, otherwise simply pouring more money in (which is what many on here advocate) is not going to be very effective.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,846
    And meanwhile, people who live in glass houses are throwing stones :)

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/28/jeremy-corbyn-branded-hypocrite-gender-pay-gap-within-top-labour/
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,065
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    http://about-france.com/health-care.htm

    http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resour ... models.php

    believe its known as the Bismark model inc certain contributions, which we do already for prescriptions, dental and eye care, why not GP visits etc..... the US model seems to be if you can afford the premiums, all good, if not, you die, so no.

    Once profit is introduced, into basic Gov functions, care goes out the window, as can been seen with the Grenfell fire, profit overrides safety or care.
    Interesting link that second one. I suppose the debate about what sort of model we should have is a separate one from this line of argument.

    That said, disagree with your point about the profit motive. It's already in the NHS and many other healthcare systems in the form of private subcontractors. The advantage is of course the incentive to be efficient and manage costs.
    ...to increase profits.
    If you believe that going to a GP tomorrow on the same basis as going to a dentist today is good for the welfare of the Country then good for you. Just pray the dollars keep rolling in to cover private care. That is the future.
    Obviously.

    But you need that incentive to be efficient and manage costs, otherwise simply pouring more money in (which is what many on here advocate) is not going to be very effective.
    and the logical conclusion is ...if you can afford the premiums, all good, if not, you die, so no, not how I want things to be. Nor an increasing amount of Americans either apparently. Cost effectiveness is not the be all and end all. For some.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,846
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    http://about-france.com/health-care.htm

    http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resour ... models.php

    believe its known as the Bismark model inc certain contributions, which we do already for prescriptions, dental and eye care, why not GP visits etc..... the US model seems to be if you can afford the premiums, all good, if not, you die, so no.

    Once profit is introduced, into basic Gov functions, care goes out the window, as can been seen with the Grenfell fire, profit overrides safety or care.
    Interesting link that second one. I suppose the debate about what sort of model we should have is a separate one from this line of argument.

    That said, disagree with your point about the profit motive. It's already in the NHS and many other healthcare systems in the form of private subcontractors. The advantage is of course the incentive to be efficient and manage costs.
    ...to increase profits.
    If you believe that going to a GP tomorrow on the same basis as going to a dentist today is good for the welfare of the Country then good for you. Just pray the dollars keep rolling in to cover private care. That is the future.
    Obviously.

    But you need that incentive to be efficient and manage costs, otherwise simply pouring more money in (which is what many on here advocate) is not going to be very effective.
    and the logical conclusion is ...if you can afford the premiums, all good, if not, you die, so no, not how I want things to be. Nor an increasing amount of Americans either apparently. Cost effectiveness is not the be all and end all. For some.
    I'm not advocating a US model. I'm talking about the private subcontracting part that exists in almost any healthcare system that I mentioned above.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,065
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    I'm talking about the private subcontracting part that exists in almost any healthcare system that I mentioned above.
    And my point is that the current part is continually being expanded towards the American system, quite probably involving American companies. The end result being the U.S. model.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,846
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    I'm talking about the private subcontracting part that exists in almost any healthcare system that I mentioned above.
    And my point is that the current part is continually being expanded towards the American system, quite probably involving American companies. The end result being the U.S. model.
    Not really, no.

    There is a massive difference between subcontracting functions within the current model and changing the underlying model to one where have to you pay and buy insurance to cover the cost.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,065
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    I'm talking about the private subcontracting part that exists in almost any healthcare system that I mentioned above.
    And my point is that the current part is continually being expanded towards the American system, quite probably involving American companies. The end result being the U.S. model.
    Not really, no.

    There is a massive difference between subcontracting functions within the current model and changing the underlying model to one where have to you pay and buy insurance to cover the cost.
    Time will tell.
    Look at how dentistry went from being almost all NHS to almost all private.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,846
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    I'm talking about the private subcontracting part that exists in almost any healthcare system that I mentioned above.
    And my point is that the current part is continually being expanded towards the American system, quite probably involving American companies. The end result being the U.S. model.
    Not really, no.

    There is a massive difference between subcontracting functions within the current model and changing the underlying model to one where have to you pay and buy insurance to cover the cost.
    Time will tell.
    Look at how dentistry went from being almost all NHS to almost all private.
    That happened years ago and was more down to the dental profession pulling out than some X files style tory conspiracy. If there was the desire to make the NHS into a true US style system it would have happened by now.

    Don't hold your breath.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,065
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    That happened years ago and was more down to the dental profession pulling out than some X files style tory conspiracy. If there was the desire to make the NHS into a true US style system it would have happened by now.

    Don't hold your breath.
    Not so long ago. I had good NHS dentists up until 5 years ago.
    I think the same principles have already started to drip through to your GP.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Lookyhere
    Lookyhere Posts: 987
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    That happened years ago and was more down to the dental profession pulling out than some X files style tory conspiracy. If there was the desire to make the NHS into a true US style system it would have happened by now.

    Don't hold your breath.
    Not so long ago. I had good NHS dentists up until 5 years ago.
    I think the same principles have already started to drip through to your GP.

    My daughter has never had an NHS dentist, she has been registered on their website numerous times and we ve been offered ones 60 or 70 miles away... its a legal requirement for children to have free dentistry.
    All Governments have been responsible for this, very short termism, takes up resources from AE plus the longer term on-going costs and care.

    GP's are already very much down the road of being wholly private businesses contracted to the NHS, i think just as many in the Tory party are ideologically opposed to the EU, many are also equally opposed to the concept of the NHS, seeing it as a socialist idea.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,209
    Lookyhere wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    That happened years ago and was more down to the dental profession pulling out than some X files style tory conspiracy. If there was the desire to make the NHS into a true US style system it would have happened by now.

    Don't hold your breath.
    Not so long ago. I had good NHS dentists up until 5 years ago.
    I think the same principles have already started to drip through to your GP.

    My daughter has never had an NHS dentist, she has been registered on their website numerous times and we ve been offered ones 60 or 70 miles away... its a legal requirement for children to have free dentistry.
    All Governments have been responsible for this, very short termism, takes up resources from AE plus the longer term on-going costs and care.

    GP's are already very much down the road of being wholly private businesses contracted to the NHS, i think just as many in the Tory party are ideologically opposed to the EU, many are also equally opposed to the concept of the NHS, seeing it as a socialist idea.

    To be fair, GPs always were private businesses that were brought into the NHS as contractors from the start.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,846
    rjsterry wrote:
    Lookyhere wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    That happened years ago and was more down to the dental profession pulling out than some X files style tory conspiracy. If there was the desire to make the NHS into a true US style system it would have happened by now.

    Don't hold your breath.
    Not so long ago. I had good NHS dentists up until 5 years ago.
    I think the same principles have already started to drip through to your GP.

    My daughter has never had an NHS dentist, she has been registered on their website numerous times and we ve been offered ones 60 or 70 miles away... its a legal requirement for children to have free dentistry.
    All Governments have been responsible for this, very short termism, takes up resources from AE plus the longer term on-going costs and care.

    GP's are already very much down the road of being wholly private businesses contracted to the NHS, i think just as many in the Tory party are ideologically opposed to the EU, many are also equally opposed to the concept of the NHS, seeing it as a socialist idea.

    To be fair, GPs always were private businesses that were brought into the NHS as contractors from the start.
    Good point.

    All we have here is a tired old rehash of 'it's a tory conspiracy to kill off the NHS'. Anyone care to show some verifiable evidence of this?
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Lookyhere
    Lookyhere Posts: 987
    How would you prove either way?
    Its not as if Hunt is going to advertise the fact!
    but if you look at the nurse shortage situation or the lack of GP's and the use of agency staff and locums then clearly something isnt working, so rather they are just totally incompetent? cut 6000 mental health nurse positions since 2010 and then try at great expense to fill 21000 vacancies AND tempt staff who have left the NHS to re join! many of whom left because of pay and conditions but still the 1% pay cap will continue.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,065
    Well, Jeremy Hunt has co-authored a book calling for an insurance based health care system. Some on here think it is a good idea. The public as a whole don't. Which it is not in anyone's manifesto.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • arthur_scrimshaw
    arthur_scrimshaw Posts: 2,596
    Makes me wonder where all the money has gone (well it doesn't really - we're all sleeping in them every night)
  • Lookyhere
    Lookyhere Posts: 987
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Well, Jeremy Hunt has co-authored a book calling for an insurance based health care system. Some on here think it is a good idea. The public as a whole don't. Which it is not in anyone's manifesto.

    Hunt denies he wrote that particular chapter and he says he believes in the founding principals of the NHS :roll:

    The Tories equally didnt have in the their manifesto that they would close down every single deep coal mine in the country either but they did and at such a cost to the communities involved.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,866
    Lookyhere wrote:
    The Tories equally didnt have in the their manifesto that they would close down every single deep coal mine in the country either but they did and at such a cost to the communities involved.

    They did say in 1983 "the interests of the whole country require Britain's massive coal industry, on which we depend for the overwhelming bulk of our electricity, to return to economic viability."
  • Lookyhere
    Lookyhere Posts: 987
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Lookyhere wrote:
    The Tories equally didnt have in the their manifesto that they would close down every single deep coal mine in the country either but they did and at such a cost to the communities involved.

    They did say in 1983 "the interests of the whole country require Britain's massive coal industry, on which we depend for the overwhelming bulk of our electricity, to return to economic viability."

    Funny that, doesnt apply to Nuclear energy or fossil fuels
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -subsidies

    but i think the point i was making is that the Tories are very good at tearing down things without any idea of the consequences, i wonder what they ll take away from us next? :lol::lol::lol:
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,846
    Lookyhere wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Lookyhere wrote:
    The Tories equally didnt have in the their manifesto that they would close down every single deep coal mine in the country either but they did and at such a cost to the communities involved.

    They did say in 1983 "the interests of the whole country require Britain's massive coal industry, on which we depend for the overwhelming bulk of our electricity, to return to economic viability."

    Funny that, doesnt apply to Nuclear energy or fossil fuels
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -subsidies

    but i think the point i was making is that the Tories are very good at tearing down things without any idea of the consequences, i wonder what they ll take away from us next? :lol::lol::lol:
    One would hope it's your utter lack of understanding as to why it's not a good idea to continually prop up long term economically unviable industries :wink:
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,065
    One wonders if the tories consider the NHS to be an industry.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.

Categories