2024 UK politics - now with Labour in charge
Comments
-
Tell that to all the companies trying to get oil & gas out of the North Atlantic.
Apart from natural difficulties this country is choosing to shut down a profitable industry. An industry it needs for energy.
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.1 -
Obviously it fluctuates an awful lot with oil prices but in 2024, oil & gas made up around 24% of Norway's GDP.
The war in Ukraine is incredibly profitable for Norway. That pays for an awful lot of hospitals, prisons, welfare etc etc.
0 -
I've had surgery to fix a broken finger and smashed teeth fixed on the NHS with no particular complaints on either. I've also worked in a hospital. Experience of GPs - the semi-privatised part of the NHS - has been more patchy. I've no experience of other health services to compare, but it seems pretty clear that other countries spend more and see some benefit for that.
France, Belgium and Germany tax their citizens and businesses significantly more than the UK on top of asking for additional insurance. I'm not sure I see any proof that UK governments can't put taxes up - we've just collectively elected a government that will almost certainly raise the tax burden and the previous government did the same.
And an insurance model inherently has to provide some enhanced service to those willing/able to pay more, which somewhat flies in the face of the principle of universal healthcare.
I would be extremely sceptical that insurance providers don't lobby to have that bar adjusted and you can certainly vote out the people who set the bar.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Life expectancy at birth, retirement or some other point?
0 -
20% of my tax currently goes to the NHS, and I also already have private health insurance, I don't want to think about what number that actually is as a household that goes towards healthcare currently.
I don't see tax coming down considerably as a result of a restructuring of the health care system, and the evidence from the care system is that the government is not willing to pay market rates, so it's just going to be massively more expensive overall isn't it?
Or is the message that it's going to be massively more expensive whatever happens, so get this done and people might notice it less?
0 -
She didn't elaborate.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
I suspect if you drilled down to most complaints about the NHS, they would largely come down to GP's and A&E treatment, or more specifically waiting times. I would guess that, whilst not perfect, most people's experience of actual treatment for illness or injury is largely positive (having had numerous treatments and surgeries over my life so far, mine has certainly been overwhelmingly so).
I agree with a lot of what has been said above about funding models and the need for greater efficiency in how the money is spent, but my guess is the most pressing issue is capacity and recruitment. As in any industry, it is difficult if you cannot staff such a huge organisational structure sufficiently.
0 -
Sorry not having that. This is me disagreeing with you and having a batantly stupid allegation leveled that I tolerate worse health outcomes. Don't be such an annoying pRick.
That report completely contradicts your argument. It says the NHS is more efficient and we are protected from high healthcare costs. It also supports what other people including me have been saying and what you are too arrogant to hear, that overall funding is not enough and we don't have enough actual clinicians. It also points out what we all know, that skimping on screening programmes for things like cancer and pulmonary health is not cost effective.
It doesn't touch upon infrastructure. It doesn't touch upon the care system. Itmakes conclusions based on data not available in the UK (point 3, cherry picked CT scanners metric per head). But flaws and limitations, aside seems like a sensible balanced analysis that you could consider digesting for yourself before advocating a health insurance model.
0 -
Don't know about Denmark but Norway's politicians took the decision that to invest their oil windfall so that it would continue to benefit future generations and is currently worth something like $1.5 trillion.
If I was a school leaver now I'd love to have a chance to go to university in Norway and then build a life over there although they now charge tuition fees for those outside the EU/EEA and Switzerland and it is expensive (it is free for those inside and was for others until last year I believe). The lifestyle over there very much suits me.
0 -
'Her'
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
I think people are unrealistic about the levels of efficiency that can be achieved in a large organisation. It's also worth noting that having greater capacity - more beds, more equipment, more staff - is better for health outcomes but inherently less efficient.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Your crusade against Rick is getting tedious.
The NHS can be more efficient and protect us from higher costs AND other countries can spend more and have better outcomes, they aren't mutually exclusive.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
There are some relatively easy wins with the NHS - a moderate increase in people, And a way out of hospital into care. (The care system bar is so low at the moment I class doing more than feck all as an easy win.) This would reduce delays and additional costs caused to the NHS and the wider economy by those delays. Progress achievable, just about, in a parliamentary term.
There are then some much harder wins, such as per head staff costs, staff retention. Possibly making T&C's more in line with private sector. Staff pension costs. New hospital buildings. All the bucket with a hole in it stuff that RC is seeking a silver bullet to address.
0 -
I treat all stupid comments the same way. He just posts a lot and a lot of them are stupid.
2 -
So you're proposing a system that will cost more and be less efficient, based on the assumption that people will be happier to pay more in private health insurance than our current national insurance and income tax fudge.
One that would also require effective regulation, ala the water companies? Or the energy companies many of whom went bust?
It just feels like an expensive tweak that wouldn't actually improve things significantly.
0 -
That first line isn't true.
You also said "It also supports what other people including me have been saying and what you are too arrogant to hear, that overall funding is not enough"
I don't know what posts you're reading but he's literally saying funding isn't high enough.
Edit, reading it again I guess you mean it's not just about funding? Certainly a bit part though.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Is this not just limiting your view to the last 14 years? Scroll back to the early 2000s and waiting times were much lower, to take one metric. I also think it's massively patronising to think that such an important decision should be taken out of the hands of the public.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
On you actual point, I agree, but I don't think an insurance model is a panacea. Nor do I think the currentodel necessarily needs fundamental change.
A lot of the pressures on the NHS are inevitable consequences of demographics, and need addressing for all healthcare systems. The common solution to having more people to care for and fewer to pay for it is increased cost.
I regard some of the silver bullet propositions as potentially helpful thought exercises but beyond that they have more in common with simple solution to complex problem Reform rhetoric than they do with serious policy making.
0 -
Yeah I think we need to recognise that efficiency isn't the only game in town. NHS is great at getting the best healthcare for your pound spent, really very good, but that is not the same as being able to provide world class healthcare, which i think, as the 6th biggest economy in the world, ought to be the target.
Clearly you do not want to take the US model as that is not only incredibly inefficient but also does not cover 7% of society, but there are other models out there that are marginally less efficient but they are creating materially better healthcare outcomes.
0 -
That King's Fund article is somewhat more equivocal on the superiority of other systems. Some health outcomes are worse under the NHS system, but it is the second best on protection of patients from high costs.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Everyone is saying funding isn't high enough. And it is stupid to say based on what I ordered anyone has posted that I "tolerate worse health outcomes". I make no apology for calling that out.
But his fundamental point is, as usual, it's better elsewhere. Well, yes, funding is higher but the systems themselves appear to have pros and cons, and overall ours is pretty good. At the very least one can say that if you like the particular balance of pros and cons that the NHS model has, the system itself doesn't need replacing in entirety. In fact, I think based on a decade of scandalous government neglect, it would be reckless to do so before trying to fix that damage.
0 -
What is the comparative spend per capita. Let's start there.
0 -
Glad the tour is back today
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono1 -
I just think it's a strange argument. The public won't accept tax rises, but will accept a more expensive, less efficient system.
The political reality is that neither party could ever implement it and hope to win the next election.
1 -
I don't really understand why you would want to change to a system that you admit is less efficient.
Changing to enforced private insurance will be incredibly unpopular for both people who don't want to pay more and people who worry about creeping privatisation of the nhs. I don't think it is the easy solution to getting more money into the system.
0 -
I think there is a fair amount of care that *could* be palmed off to an insurance model, such as dentistry, some elective surgery, weight loss, some reproductive treatments. Potentially even mental health. That is where the strong electoral headwinds would be encountered though.
0 -
Post Cameron/Osborne UK
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!2 -
I think the reality is that NHS dentistry and mental health are largely impossible to access for large chunks of the population already .
0 -
Private insurance for dentistry is already expensive but pretty much the only option. The only cost effective option for anything non-NHS and not insurance covered seems to be to go to Turkey.
0 -
Find some fun news and put it on another thread. For example, we could argue over whether it was poor form for Raducanu to pull out of Murray's
testimonialmixed doubles match.0
