(Looks into thread. Sees it’s the same boring old rubbish as usual. Notices there are no pictures of nice bottoms or indeed anything else. Is bored very quickly. Wanders off again…)

TJ Germany is about 20% higher funded in terms of GDP – even more than that in cash terms. (30% iirc ) thats why it is better.

dont forget poor management and continual political interference. 😉

TJ – not quite as simple as that if you look at the data properly.

Germans spend 10.5% of GDP on health compared to 8.7% for UK – as you say, 20% more BUT the UK make much more of that expenditure from the public purse. Germans use more privately funded insurance to cover their health expenditure. These reduces that 20% extra to actually only 11% more spent by the German state on health than the UK.

The OECD data Im looking at has limited “output” metrics to work with (i.e. that can be assumed to normalise for health expenditure as opposed to other social variables), but keeping it simple, if we use, say hospital bed numbers, the Germans manage to run 140% more beds than we do for that 10% higher National Health Service expense.

All numbers from OECD Health report 2008

conceivably we could spend our nations entire wealth on healthcare and it still wouldn’t be enough.

Come on, think a bit more. What does this actually mean? If you think that no one should be allowed to die or suffer any pain then you are right, it will never be enough.

So if you set that as your goal, then yes, the NHS is and will always be a “failure”

But if you consider that the NHS should be there to treat anyone who needs medical attention for any treatable condition that is having a -ve impact on their physical or mental well being, maybe with some prioritisation of the most serious/urgent cases according to medical need. And also to relieve pain and suffering of those who can’t be treated or are in terminal decline, then actually I think it does a pretty good job.

Just how far the NHS extends its services to prolong life though is a political decision and says nothing about the efficiency of the NHS. If politicians want to prolong the life of the very old and sick to the absolute limits of science then the service will always appear to be “expensive” (to some of those who aren’t old or sick).

I don’t know what a better system would be but I reckon for a cool £100bil I can find out and implement it with change.

Rather arrogant of you to claim to be better qualified to do this that anyone already in the system though? Do you not think that most people in the NHS don’t think about its cost?

can’t say i have any stats to actually back this up but I am lead to believe that the NHS is WAY down the european league table in terms of beds, technology, kit, etc

no evidence, but you’ve heard? well, it’s on the internet now, so it must be true.
incidentally, I’m Spartacus

Stoner – where it is funded from is irrelevant to this. Germany healthcare has more money to spend which is the main reason it is better.

the Germans manage to run 140% more beds than we do for that 10% higher National Health Service expense.

Ah yes, that sounds like a useful metric.

Maybe if we looked at the number of beds in hospitals rather than anything to do with actual people we would be able to sort everything out.

Now, where’s that machine that goes “ping!”

can’t say i have any stats to actually back this up but I am lead to believe that the NHS is WAY down the european league table in terms of beds, technology, kit, etc
no evidence, but you’ve heard? well, it’s on the internet now, so it must be true.
incidentally, I’m Spartacus

Rank, No. Hospital Beds /1000 pop, OECD (sample = 26). UK Rank = 22

HTH

Stoner – where it is funded from is irrelevant to this. Germany healthcare has more money to spend which is the main reason it is better.

Nice to hear you’re such an advocate for BUPA, AXA PPP etc.

I don’t know what a better system would be but I reckon for a cool £100bil I can find out and implement it with change.

..and that my friends is the biggest single failing of the NHS. There are are millions of people who don’t know the system or how it works, but having read the Daily Wail or some stuff off the internet are far better qualified than anyone else to “fix” it. Cue more political footballing while the press following publicity hungry politicians with their need to be seen to be doing something make a few superficial swipes at things they don’t understand, introduce a few new problems and make no attempt to deal with any of the underlying institutional issues which plague what is still a brilliant organisation.
In spite of what the politicuians keep doing to it.

@ Bigbutslimmer go on then, you first! prove me wrong 😆

by the way, I dont read the mail, but without exception, every health care professional (not management) I’ve met in the last year has spent about half the conversation ranting about management stifling their productive output

Ah yes, that sounds like a useful metric.

Maybe if we looked at the number of beds in hospitals rather than anything to do with actual people we would be able to sort everything out.

rather than patronise, read my note about lack of OECD metrics on patient experience. I could use Mortality rates or Life Expectancy but those figures arent normalised for healthcare expenditure. Hospital Bed numbers are.

BTW you’re also forgetting that Germany has a different GDP to us.

So Germany spends 10.5% of its apples compared to us spending 8.7% of our bananas.

But thanks for trying to simplify everything to a single statistic for us – very helpful for those of us who are a bit thick.

There is no doubt germany is better in many ways – however all that shows is better funded = better outcomes

did you know they spend more on admin in Germany – because of the multiply and complex funding ( which BTW are not al insurance companies as we know them – more somewhere between BUPA and a mutual)

But thanks for trying to simplify everything to a single statistic for us – very helpfull for those of us who are a bit thick.

well it looks like you need all the help you can get.

Where I say :”These reduces that 20% extra to actually only 11% more spent by the German state on health than the UK.” the figure of 11% is referring to “spent”. i.e. cash for cash, in US$ per population at US$ purchasing power. Im not as stupid as you look. If you want the numbers it is: $2,869 for Germany, and $2,585 for UK.

…those figures arent normalised for healthcare expenditure. Hospital Bed numbers are.

I can just imagine the meeting…

“We haven’t got any useful statistics so what can we come up with that is easy to measure”

“I know, let’s count the beds”

Sorry, answering before reading properly. Just deleted that post.

There is no doubt germany is better in many ways – however all that shows is better funded = better outcomes

actually it doesnt TJ. Just as I cant get any data on patient outcomes as a function of funding in the OECD, nor can you. Just as I can not demonstrate a lack of correlation neither can you a positive one.

Economy related video, made me chuckle

Yes we do need to rebalance the ecomomy in favour of the private sector

No we don’t.

So, for idiots:

If the government is employing the finest economic experts, how come we’re fecked?

because the last government’s ideological policy was in spite of economic advice not because of it.

.

If the government is employing the finest economic experts, how come we’re fecked?

Just because they employ them and pay them, doesn’t mean they’ll listen to them. I believe the routine is to brief your resident experts as follows:

“I’ve got an extensive research project for you. I want you to leave no stone unturned in the quest for the right solution for the country. You will be given all the time, funds and resources you require. When you and your team have condluded this important task, we would like you to reach the following conclusions……

If the government is employing the finest economic experts, how come we’re fecked?

Because even the best economic experts seem to be only any good at economics.

To paraphrase: If the only tool in your box is an economist, every problem starts to look like an economics problem.

Just to put it into context, even the finest economists are yet to work out that we live on a planet with finite resources.

Quite refreshing to see such a right-wing lunatic on mainstream British TV actually.

Made me realise how sensible and balanced most of our TV actually is.

economists are yet to work out that we live on a planet with finite resources.

very funny.

The entire subject of economics is built on the premise that “we live on a planet with finite resources” and that the interaction of demand and supply around this finite volume is what gives us market economy.

Just what did you think economists were thinking happened instead? humour me! Afterall, if you show yourself to be so good at it I might even starting spouting ill thought out nonsense about f-stops and depths of field for you to learn from me.

Are you telling me that there is an economist somewhere who doesn’t advocate year on year economic growth?

growth is not incompatible with finite resources.
In fact its essential for the market driven development of substitutes.

Ever heard of Malthus?

Growth is not incompatible with finite resources, until you actually start to get close to using some of them up. Then it becomes very incompatible indeed.

Ever heard of common bloody sense?

ahwiles – Member
Martin Durkin? – the man has a history…

basically, everytime he gets on Telly, C4 have to apologise to the nation for all the misinformation he’s presented.

years ago, he presented a show called ‘the great global warming swindle’ – C4 had to apologise to more or less everyone involved for the completely inaccurate way in which their information had been twisted to suit Durkin’s agenda.

whatever Martin Durkins says, you can be sure that the truth lies somewhere in the opposite direction.

i’m a litte/lot disappointed that C4 are still employing this git.

Yep it’s the type thing this t-shirt was made for.

http://badscience2.spreadshirt.co.uk/i-think-you-ll-find-it-s-a-bit-more-complicated-than-that-A8097922/customize/color/245

until you actually start to get close to using some of them up

by which point only the economically most efficient uses for the resource will be able to pay for it as the market function will have found alternative resources for lower efficiency uses.

Tell you what, why dont you just go and read an economics primer first it would really be a short cut for these kind of threads…

by which point only the economically most efficient uses for the resource will be able to pay for it as the market function will have found alternative resources for lower efficiency uses.

What is the alternative to fish?

Soya.

next.

Stoner – Member
growth is not incompatible with finite resources.
In fact its essential for the market driven development of substitutes.

Ever heard of Malthus?

Yes.

“If the only check to population is misery, the population will grow until it is miserable enough to check its growth.”

Mmmmm… Delicious Bluefin Soya.

Bring on the next decade…

That’s why I don’t need to read an economics primer.

To you the solution to the extinction of Bluefin Tuna is to eat soya – perfect economist’s answer.

To you the solution to the extinction of Bluefin Tuna is to eat soya – perfect economist’s answer

Oh FFS. Do you ever think before typing?

Soya is not a “solution” to bluefin tuna extinction numb nuts. Its a substitute source of protein at cheaper production cost. That is all. Economists don’t design how things happen they make a stab at demonstrating why things happen. If you want to piss your rocks off at someone then do it at politicians. It takes social policy to modify free markets. Not f***ing with the analysis of the market itself. Youd shoot a messenger because?

Economics can tell you how to save the bluefin tuna, but you need someone with balls and an army to enforce it. Thats not the fault of economics or economists.

How about we string up photographers for war reporting?

Oh come off it. You’re saying that economists only present the facts and that if the facts are misunderstood or misrepresented then that isn’t anything to do with economists!?

Economists don’t design how things happen!!!?????

Ever heard of Keynes???????

you quite clearly have absolutely no idea what it is to be an economist or indeed the subject of economics. But its suits you to find a scary monster to blame for stuff. hope its working for you.

ahhh i see, didnt know the guy had history

Its not just Durkin, since Hamish Mykura took over as head of Documentary at C4 fact has gone down the toilet and the medium has become more important than the message. Programmes are deliberately onesided, flawed and inflammatory because the measure of success has become how talked-about a programme is. Ideally a programme will cause a stir before its even aired, and be discussed in the media and over the water cooler by people who’ve formed opinions but haven’t even seen it.

Mykura is a smart-arsed dangerous idiot frankly, but successful enough that other commissioning editors in other better respected institutions are starting to ape him