Wow, TJ states his opinion as fact once again.
How can even you possibly think that having 3 training suites and 3 control rooms equals less overheads than the single control room and training suite of the private firm? 
You're becoming a parody of yourself.
Hahahaha!
Anything that could possibly be done to the NHS would only have a minimal effect on how effective it is at dealing with this countries health concerns.
The real problem is that too much stress or pressure is being put on the NHS by unhealthy, unfit people, poor diet, abusive life styles, combined with stress and polution add to that naturaly occuring ailments or conditions and you have more and more people requiring to use the system/resource that the NHS represents.
Perhaps the best course of action would be to encourage individuals to alter there behaviour and attitude towards themselves, also support for individuals that choose to change their thinking and subsequent behaviour.
Rather than debate this point or that point which would simply waste time, it might be much better if all of us that are concerned with these issues encourage people we know to eat a balanced diet and exercise regularly as well as other changes.
If you know of any websites that are involved in encouraging this change in perspective, or that give support with exercise / dieting advice why not post them into this thread.
No I haven't really read the arguments of this thread, I'm not in the mood to argue, also I'm mental remember.
Without the capacity to effect change, debate is simply pointless posturing.
Yes fandango, yes to almost all of that.
The problem is that by disparaging the NHS, and by forcing it to make 'savings', we make it appear to be a second class service, which in turn makes it easier to claim that it isn't working, and make it easier to run it down further.
It's the best system we have, and should be a source of pride and consequently investment, rather than a political football to be supported or undermined according to whichever group of politicians are trying to dick us over this time.
Devient - because I have seen the figures for private healthcare in general and know for a fact that overheads are higher for the same level of activity. I also worked in a unit before and after it went PFI and saw the increase in overheads
Overheads may be less in that small non clinical area you work in however in general private healthcare is more expensive because of its higher overheads amongst tother factors
As crikey points out you are not comparing like with like as well
The problem is that by disparaging the NHS, and by forcing it to make 'savings', we make it appear to be a second class service, which in turn makes it easier to claim that it isn't working, and make it easier to run it down further.
To fair that's been the strategy across the board for a very long time. What always comes to my mind is the railways - the underinvestment in the railways in Britain for decades was practically criminal. Until the final year before privatisation of course, when investment was suddenly doubled. How the railways ever managed to function is a complete mystery to me. Now government subsidy to the privitised railways is 5 times what it was pre-privatisation.
How can even you possibly think that having 3 training suites and 3 control rooms equals less overheads than the single control room and training suite of the private firm? You're becoming a parody of yourself.
The army costs more to run than my car..inefficient bastards.
deviant - MemberHow can even you possibly think that having 3 training suites and 3 control rooms equals less overheads than the single control room and training suite of the private firm?
There's a lot of ways it could mean less overheads- shipping staff around to training centres stops making sense quickly when you're dealing with more staff. Combining control rooms that do different jobs, or cover geographical areas in a way that makes local knowledge useful, can be less effective. And so on.
Junkyard, the numbers are comparable....its why private firms are taking so many NHS contracts at the moment (and were doing so long before this Government)....because they are able to approach the PCTs and undercut the NHS tenders.
The PCTs arent conjuring money from think air to throw at the private sector, they will go with whoever is cheapest for them....the private firms i'm involved with all have far fewer premises, far less managers etc than their NHS competitors....there is no good reason why the NHS cant look at how this is done in the private sector and incorporate it into state practice....but there are far too many vested interests in the NHS for this too happen (unions, politics etc).
Just come in from the cinema, not my choice but guess the film! Probably not the best preparation for further comment on the NHS. So JYs picture of JMK last night and Maggie, Maggie, Maggie tonight. Not sure where to turn!!!
Streep for an award and Broadbent for best supporting actor.
Last thought - 11 Year old economics focuses on efficiency alone, when we grow up we talk about efficiency and effectiveness. Too many 11 year olds are bought into manage and change the NHS though.
Now dreams of Keynesianism or Thatcherism????
The number of patients not being treated within the NHS waiting-time limit has soared by 43% since the coalition took office, official figures show.
Interesting. The Daily Mail chooses to dedicate its leader on healthcare, but from a different angle :
Health unions care only for themselves
They seem apparently very concerned that threaten industrial action by the British Medical Association would lead to countless operations and appointments being cancelled.
So I'm assuming that if any industrial action by the BMA caused an increase in the number of patients not being treated within the NHS waiting-time limit waiting-time by, say 10%, they would be furious. If it caused an increase of 21.5% they would be seething with anger. And if it caused an increase of 43%, the Daily Mail leader writers would be ready to explode.
But if a bunch of ex-Bullingdon Club vandals are responsible for the number of patients not being treated within the NHS waiting-time limit to increase by 43%, then it doesn't even warrant a comment.
Go on strike and you're selfish and don't care about anyone but yourself, but kick the country in the guts and make ordinary people pay for the cock-ups of your greedy incompetent banker, spiv, and speculator mates, and it's coz you care.
And people fall for that crap - which goes a long way in explaining why the country is in such a mess.
deviant - MemberJunkyard, the numbers are comparable....its why private firms are taking so many NHS contracts at the moment (and were doing so long before this Government)....because they are able to approach the PCTs and undercut the NHS tenders.
Nope - the numbers are fiddled because if they are not there is no chance of teh private healthcare being granted contacts as they are almost always more expensive
One major cost omitted - the cost of training the staff tht thy poach.
there are assumptions made about NHS costs that deliberately and artifically inflate them to make it look cheaper to have private contracts.
teh extra managerial costs of these reform are not considered either
You must log in to post.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
