Pilger film about the NHS.

[gordondaviesmoustache]

As unelectable as Corbyn was, it’s difficult for me to imagine the country being in a worse place if he’d become prime Minister in December 2019, especially if he didn’t have a working majority.

He’d have almost certainly have appeased Putin though, which would have been disastrous.

As for Pilger I think he’s a patronising **** who is as tendentious in his reporting as those in the MSM he seeks to vilify. That’s said, we do need journalists like this who speak to power and challenge authority. I just don’t like Pilger’s MO or general disposition, and so I don’t have much respect for his output.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

There was as much hatred for him from within his own party as well. Shame.

I accept much of the grief he got was unwarranted but the simple fact is that in this conservative and largely bourgeois society, a properly left wing government is a virtual impossibility. The metrics simply aren’t there amongst enough (over 35%) of the electorate.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

It doesn’t help when liar liar Johnson lead the muppets in this country to believe that Corbyn was planning to get shut of the army - what Corbyn actually said was wouldn’t it be a better world if we didn’t need an army. Maybe a Utopian but rather that than a liar.

This type of reporting is still there. Streeting has stated very similar with the NHS, saying it would be a better place if we didn’t need the private sector, and aims for an NHS that is that good, it doesn’t have to rely on it, yet, the RW media drip feeds him wanting the private sector to do more.

I always do a double-take when things like this are posted on here.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

I’ve a family member who’s a youth officer in one of Labour’s regional organisations and believe me nobody has less time for Corbyn and his followers than Labour. They’re being purged. It’s brutal. They’re the Tories “lite”. And moving closer all the time.

I suppose it’s a case of ‘What goes around, comes around’. Once you lose the vote with the people (JC had 2 attempts) then you are surplus to requirement as it’s no good trying to change things from the sidelines.

JC, and his support, have allowed the Tory cunts to do what they like, even turning the red wall, blue. I’m sure they didn’t mean to, but it was their inactiveness that led to it.

And that’s why I understand what is happening as Labour chase the votes. Being in the position they are in, from such a low starting position, just shows how much the Tories have fucked up.

 

[Rascal]

Since I can remember and long before I could vote I was told the NHS wouldn’t survive “the next Tory government” which shows how poor they must be at planning given the fact there’s been so many of them in that time and the NHS is still there and receives more money now than it has at any time in its history.

Ah! that old line, pushed continually by the government, whilst being true in cash terms, it does not allow for inflation which means in real terms the NHS is chronically underfunded

But you know that don't you pal.

 

[SWP's back]

Ah! that old line, pushed continually by the government, whilst being true in cash terms, it does not allow for inflation which means in real terms the NHS is chronically underfunded

But you know that don't you pal.

So have they sold off the NHS yet?

When will they?

Seems this government is still spending more on the NHS as a percentage of GDP than Blair or Brown or Callaghan as a share of GDP:




Now for a graph of ‘real’ spending, adjusted for inflation:



So are these graphs wrong as I’m trying to get to the bottom of what is fact and what is fiction but everything appears to be saying the same thing.

 

[Rascal]

So have they sold off the NHS yet?

When will they?

Huge swathes of the NHS are now run by private companies, it is being privatised by stealth.

For instance Virgin Care owns 24 GP-led provider companies that provide NHS services through networks of GP surgeries; and community-based NHS services, but they use NHS branding.

The NHS spends £1million a week on private 999 ambulances because ambulance services are being sold off.


United Health Group inc is an American healthcare company, ranked sixth on the fortune 500. Although based in the USA, its subsidiary companies operate globally; in the UK its affiliate Optum provides commissioning support to the NHS, an opportunity first seized after the 2012 Lansley led NHS reform

Research over several years shows that the private sector wins 65% of the value of all contracts advertised and 51% of the number of contracts put up for tender.

In most areas private provision is increasing, but the NHS is still the main provider. However the private sector have moved into areas where they can generate a reliable return, such as:

• Elective surgery, such as hip operations where private firms now perform a third of these procedures in certain areas.
• Inpatient mental health, where it supplies over 30% of child and adolescent care
• Community services, where the NHS is now heavily reliant on non-NHS providers to deliver services.

30% of mental healthcare is now undertaken in the private sector

58% of dentistry is now done in the private sector

72% of long term care is now in the hands of the private sector.

 

[SWP's back]

Not sure if you saw the edit but I added some graphs before your reply.

 

[Rascal]

Not sure if you saw the edit but I added some graphs before your reply.

I didn't see them pal

As a rebuttal though

Spending on the NHS in England - Full Fact

How much will the government spend on health in England over the next few years?

fullfact.org

 

[BobKowalski]

So have they sold off the NHS yet?

When will they?

Seems this government is still spending more on the NHS as a percentage of GDP than Blair or Brown or Callaghan as a share of GDP:

View attachment 86692


Now for a graph of ‘real’ spending, adjusted for inflation:

View attachment 86693

So are these graphs wrong as I’m trying to get to the bottom of what is fact and what is fiction but everything appears to be saying the same thing.

Demographics I imagine will play a part. Declining fertility rates and people living longer means more demand on the Health Service and spending has not matched that demand. Secondary, rather than primary care is likely to be the biggest drain with shifting demographics.

Then there is pay and conditions, training, staffing all impacting on the service provided.

Past spending as a share of GDP may have been sufficient for the demand at the time, but like other services - education, defence, policing - there has been underinvestment over the last decade or so. Which, given we kept electing Govts obsessed with austerity is hardly a surprise.

 

[SWP's back]

Demographics I imagine will play a part. Declining fertility rates and people living longer means more demand on the Health Service and spending has not matched that demand. Secondary, rather than primary care is likely to be the biggest drain with shifting demographics.

Then there is pay and conditions, training, staffing all impacting on the service provided.

Past spending as a share of GDP may have been sufficient for the demand at the time, but like other services - education, defence, policing - there has been underinvestment over the last decade or so. Which, given we kept electing Govts obsessed with austerity is hardly a surprise.

But you can see the “real” spend has quadrupled over the last 33 years from the graph so hopefully understand my questioning of the mantra repeated on here about the NHS not being funded.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

But you can see the “real” spend has quadrupled over the last 33 years from the graph so hopefully understand my questioning of the mantra repeated on here about the NHS not being funded.

Selective argument.

Do you have shares in private healthcare companies?

 

[SWP's back]

Selective argument.

Do you have shares in private healthcare companies?

How’s it selective?

As for the second part, go fuck yourself. A completely worthless remark/question that did absolutely nothing to further any point you may have. It’s called playing the man, rather than the ball and you like to believe you’re better than that as a rule. Be better.

It’s Friday night here and I really can’t be arsed having an argument with you so I’m sticking you on ignore for the weekend.

 

[GeorgeR]

Here’s an article which shows a graph of real term increases and those increases after being adjusted for population and demographic changes - which doesn’t paint as rosy a picture of the funding

The past, present and future of government spending on the NHS

With the Chancellor making further updates to government spending plans and the health service facing crisis on several fronts, there is uncertainty over what the future will hold for health care finances amid such instability. How much is this government really spending on the NHS per person...

www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

How’s it selective?

As for the second part, go fuck yourself. A completely worthless remark/question that did absolutely nothing to further any point you may have. It’s called playing the man, rather than the ball and you like to believe you’re better than that as a rule. Be better.

It’s Friday night here and I really can’t be arsed having an argument with you so I’m sticking you on ignore for the weekend.

Because of this.

Would the NHS be in a better position had investment kept pace with comparable countries?

How the NHS might look had it been funded the same as comparative countries.

www.nhsconfed.org

 

[DenisLawBackHeel74]

Demographics I imagine will play a part. Declining fertility rates and people living longer means more demand on the Health Service and spending has not matched that demand. Secondary, rather than primary care is likely to be the biggest drain with shifting demographics.

Then there is pay and conditions, training, staffing all impacting on the service provided.

Past spending as a share of GDP may have been sufficient for the demand at the time, but like other services - education, defence, policing - there has been underinvestment over the last decade or so. Which, given we kept electing Govts obsessed with austerity is hardly a surprise.

That last bit is the key for me. I worry about healthcare for the most vulnerable in our society without the means to pay for it going forward.

I think the Reality is the rest of us will need to pay a few hundred quid a month more to bring NHS spending in line with where it needs to be…

 

[BobKowalski]

But you can see the “real” spend has quadrupled over the last 33 years from the graph so hopefully understand my questioning of the mantra repeated on here about the NHS not being funded.

Yes. And it isn’t enough to meet the current demand.

 

[Kirkstall Blue]

Tony Blair how could we elect him on a Labour ticket and every Labour PM since without the general public being made aware of what was happening to the NHS
Thatcher brought in the privatisation policy but Labour didn’t have to go along with it.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

But you can see the “real” spend has quadrupled over the last 33 years from the graph so hopefully understand my questioning of the mantra repeated on here about the NHS not being funded.

But that's kind of a meaningless statistic if it's not taken along with inflation and population. It's also why any claims of record funding or funding increases should be taken with a grain of salt in any government budget. Budgets should increase every year, because the money is worth less every year. The question is how quickly it's increasing.

The percentage of GDP graph that you posted is probably more relevant, although even that could be misleading. If you tank the economy, then the amount you're spending on the NHS as a percentage of GDP could go up even if you haven't changed a thing. If GDP goes down and so does NHS funding, then the graph would look level. So it would need a bit more digging to understand that one, I suspect, because Brexit hasn't been kind to the GDP.