General Election June 8th

[Damocles]

As much as people like to lord the NHS for it's high moral standing, it's piss poor when it comes to quality and throwing ever greater sums of money at it won't guarantee that will change. I don't have a solution but I guess if you look at those countries who have the highest positive outcomes you might get a clue.

Oh. Because it's generally rated as the most efficient health service in the world

 

[malg]

Just managed to watch Corbyn on Andrew Neil, and Abbott on Marr. Although not a Labour supporter, I have taken to Corbyn as I quite liked him on previous interviews on Marr, and I'm not a fan of the way he's been treated by the media and the Blairites in his party. However, after watching the pair of them today, no way would I trust either of them on security matters. Abbott came across as a liar, and Corbyn wasn't too far behind.

Luckily I live somewhere my vote doesn't matter, as it's a nailed on Labour seat.

Where leaders are concerned we're as badly off as the American's were last year.

 

[Peggy's a blue]

Can somebody explain to me why no other country has copied our NHS that is to say benchmarked it as a success story? Genuine question, in case the Owen Jones amongst you think it some form of rhetorical question.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

Oh. Because it's generally rated as the most efficient health service in the world

By whom?

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Take your pick:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Europe

I read in the latest survey the UK was 28th in Europe but can't find the report right now.

Just found this :
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/h...land-spain-slovenia-30th-lancet-a7744131.html

Funny that almost everyone of those countries spend more money as a % of GDP. Who'd have thought that? If the Danes, Swedes, French and Germans can spend more on health care without apparently bankrupting the rest of their economy, why can’t we?

 

[Gelsons Dad]

Funny that almost everyone of those countries spend more money as a % of GDP. Who'd have thought that? If the Danes, Swedes, French and Germans can spend more on health care without apparently bankrupting the rest of their economy, why can’t we?

Because they all have levels of private healthcare which means people don't abuse the services because it cost them money and others choose to pay for a higher level of service?
Not saying it's the case but they don't have an NHS

 

[KenTheLandlord]

Go on then I'll bite... how so?

Look up what she knew and what was done with the suicide bomber and other Libyans and the curious relationship they had.

 

[KenTheLandlord]

The one thing telling me not to vote Labour is her as home sec.:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/80...anifesto-Guru-Murthy-ariana-grande-manchester

"In 1984 you’ve been quoted as saying ‘every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us’...

“You also said you couldn’t identify as British, can you now tell the voters that you do identify as British?”

Ms Abbott replied: “I was elected as a British member of parliament in 1987, I was the first black woman ever elected and I’m proud to say I’m a British member of parliament."

-

To be fair to her, she's one of those politicians so used to skirting questions it's probably become her default response to.

There maybe changes there. There is no guarantee that if labour win, she will keep that role.
What we do know is we have have an inept Home secretary now, one that needs to be removed.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Because they all have levels of private healthcare which means people don't abuse the services because it cost them money and others choose to pay for a higher level of service?
Not saying it's the case but they don't have an NHS

Comparing spending on health care between countries is not straightforward. We have to consider how to deal with differences in the source of funding: public or private (which will include out-of-pocket spending as well as insurance payments, often compulsory in countries with social insurance systems). Given differences in the way countries fund their health care it is usual to compare total spending (public plus private) expressed as a proportion of countries’ GDP.

On this basis, data from the OECD shows that in 2013 (the latest year for which figures have been published) the UK spent 8.5 per cent of its GDP on public and private health care. (This excludes capital spending equivalent to 0.3 per cent of GDP to make figures comparable with other countries’.) This placed the UK 13th out of the original 15 countries of the EU and 1.7 percentage points lower than the EU-14's level (ie, treating the whole of the EU-14 (ie, minus the UK) as one country with one GDP and one total spend on health care) of 10.1 per cent of total GDP. (Note: the difference of 1.7ppts is rounded).
If we were to close this gap solely by increasing NHS spending (and assuming that health spending in other UK countries was in line with the 2015 Spending Review plans for England), by 2020/21 it would take an increase of 30 per cent – £43 billion – in real terms to match the EU-15 weighted average spend in 2013, taking total NHS spending to £185 billion.

Whether funded publicly or privately, spending more on health will necessarily mean less on other things – either less private disposable income (if the additional money comes from additional taxation) or less on other publicly funded services such as education or defence – or indeed, paying down the UK’s debt and reducing its deficit. Historically, increases in NHS spending have in the main been achieved by reduced spending on other public services (such as defence) rather than say borrowing or tax increases per se.
Whatever the flaws of international comparisons, it’s clear the UK is currently a relatively low spender on health care – as the Barker Commission pointed out – with a prospect of sinking further down the international league tables. The question is increasingly not so much whether it is sustainable to spend more – after all, many countries already manage that and have done for decades. Rather, it is whether it is sustainable for our spending to remain so comparatively low, given the improvements in the quality of care and outcomes we want and expect from our health services.

 

[Peggy's a blue]

Comparing spending on health care between countries is not straightforward. We have to consider how to deal with differences in the source of funding: public or private (which will include out-of-pocket spending as well as insurance payments, often compulsory in countries with social insurance systems). Given differences in the way countries fund their health care it is usual to compare total spending (public plus private) expressed as a proportion of countries’ GDP.

On this basis, data from the OECD shows that in 2013 (the latest year for which figures have been published) the UK spent 8.5 per cent of its GDP on public and private health care. (This excludes capital spending equivalent to 0.3 per cent of GDP to make figures comparable with other countries’.) This placed the UK 13th out of the original 15 countries of the EU and 1.7 percentage points lower than the EU-14's level (ie, treating the whole of the EU-14 (ie, minus the UK) as one country with one GDP and one total spend on health care) of 10.1 per cent of total GDP. (Note: the difference of 1.7ppts is rounded).
If we were to close this gap solely by increasing NHS spending (and assuming that health spending in other UK countries was in line with the 2015 Spending Review plans for England), by 2020/21 it would take an increase of 30 per cent – £43 billion – in real terms to match the EU-15 weighted average spend in 2013, taking total NHS spending to £185 billion.

Whether funded publicly or privately, spending more on health will necessarily mean less on other things – either less private disposable income (if the additional money comes from additional taxation) or less on other publicly funded services such as education or defence – or indeed, paying down the UK’s debt and reducing its deficit. Historically, increases in NHS spending have in the main been achieved by reduced spending on other public services (such as defence) rather than say borrowing or tax increases per se.
Whatever the flaws of international comparisons, it’s clear the UK is currently a relatively low spender on health care – as the Barker Commission pointed out – with a prospect of sinking further down the international league tables. The question is increasingly not so much whether it is sustainable to spend more – after all, many countries already manage that and have done for decades. Rather, it is whether it is sustainable for our spending to remain so comparatively low, given the improvements in the quality of care and outcomes we want and expect from our health services.

Great post, but, my understanding is, we are the only nation that has a tax funded health care scheme, so is this like for like comparison?

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Great post, but, my understanding is, we are the only nation that has a tax funded health care scheme, so is this like for like comparison?

It includes both the public and private provision from all the countries, including the UK.

 

[bluebaja]

I think you've been misled. The Tories are unfortunately committed to spending ever more money on the NHS. What "GP services as we currently know them will cease to exist within 3 years" is supposed to mean, lord only knows. Maybe she thinks we're planning on turning them all into golf academies?

What I am saying is this. Vote Tory and within 3 years Primary Care will be provided by Virgin / Compass / BMI / Spire. The relationship between those providers and secondary NHS services (hospitals) will deteriorate. An appointment with your GP will cost you money. Your GP will be employed by a company whose whole reason for existance is to make a profit. That profit has to come from somewhere, and that is our pockets. Our tax/NI won't go down. If you are happy with that then fine. Please don't tell me I have been misled, because I spent 35 years in the NHS, I have close relationships with lots of senior people in the NHS and I think I know what I am talking about.

 

[Peggy's a blue]

It includes both the public and private provision from all the countries, including the UK.

Thank you, the other question I would like to ask is - why do the tories get a lambasting by the lefties, bbc, guardian, Owen Jones et al for introducing private funding? When it was the last Labour government that introduced the Private Financing Initiative (PFI) something that rarely gets a mention!

 

[Peggy's a blue]

What I am saying is this. Vote Tory and within 3 years Primary Care will be provided by Virgin / Compass / BMI / Spire. The relationship between those providers and secondary NHS services (hospitals) will deteriorate. An appointment with your GP will cost you money. Your GP will be employed by a company whose whole reason for existance is to make a profit. That profit has to come from somewhere, and that is our pockets. Our tax/NI won't go down. If you are happy with that then fine. Please don't tell me I have been misled, because I spent 35 years in the NHS, I have close relationships with lots of senior people in the NHS and I think I know what I am talking about.

Nonsense labour introduced PFI under Blair!

 

[KenTheLandlord]

Nonsense labour introduced PFI under Blair!

He certainly did and hence why the Labour party has moved away from the tory lite principles of back then.
Members of the party realised this, amongst others, needed to be changes and why Corbyn was elected twice with a huge majority.
Getting the party back to what it should be doing.

 

[Peggy's a blue]

He certainly did and hence why the Labour party has moved away from the tory lite principles of back then.
Members of the party realised this, amongst others, needed to be changes and why Corbyn was elected twice with a huge majority.
Getting the party back to what it should be doing.

Total respect for your views, however, don't you think the narrative of public good private bad has moved on a bit over the years?

 

[bluebaja]

Nonsense labour introduced PFI under Blair!

True. All I am saying is vote Tory and this is the future. If you are happy with that (paying for GP appointments and for your GP to be employed by a Private Healthcare provider) then so be it. I am not even saying that this scenario is wrong, what I am trying to do is to point out what is going to happen in the event of a Tory victory.

 

[Tuearts right boot]

As much as people like to lord the NHS for it's high moral standing, it's piss poor when it comes to quality and throwing ever greater sums of money at it won't guarantee that will change. I don't have a solution but I guess if you look at those countries who have the highest positive outcomes you might get a clue.

How true, as the 6th largest employer in the world it must be difficult to control but the money wasted is enormous.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Thank you, the other question I would like to ask is - why do the tories get a lambasting by the lefties, bbc, guardian, Owen Jones et al for introducing private funding? When it was the last Labour government that introduced the Private Financing Initiative (PFI) something that rarely gets a mention!

PFI was actually introduced by John Major, although there is no doubt it was hugely expanded by Gordon Brown. It was obviously opposed by all opposition parties but nothing has ever been done. It's one of the biggest scams going and it's only used as it keeps capital spending off the current account balance sheet. At a time of unprecedentedly low interest rates, successive UK governments have found a way to borrow at much higher rates than necessary. Not only that, before the PFI investors will sign off, the government has to agree to be lender of last resort. So, if they build a hospital which either closes down or nobody uses it, the government will give them their money back. It's like walking into the bookies and backing every horse, claiming your winnings and having the bookie agree to give you all your losing bets back!
Osbourne was particularly scathing about PFI and said they must be consigned to history as they gave extraordinarily poor returns. Obviously, once in power, he signed off on another 61 schemes. Sadly, all politicians are cnuts....

 

[KenTheLandlord]

Total respect for your views, however, don't you think the narrative of public good private bad has moved on a bit over the years?

There are millions things that have moved on. Sadly some jokers haven't and think Labour are stuck in the 70s.
I dont think you would find many people that support Corbyn would disagree that the whole narrative has shifted.
It certainly aint all public bad and private good though. What he wants to do is shift that perception.
The press though and those with the most money and thus loudest voice, have the most to lose £ per £ wise, yet it is a fraction of their wealth.
The irony is not lost that a significant percent of their fortunes, have often been harvested on the back of public work.