[Closed] What to cut to fund the NHS?

Thats true, granted

TJ you couldn't be more wrong (IMO). Had we continued as we where going to consequences would have been far worse. We are far from out of the woods yet.

Kimbers the Tories are trying to spend as much as they can, it just won't be enough as its our system which is broken. Universal free at the point of delivery healthcare is a wonderful objective but it cannot cope with today's requirements and an electorate that won't vote for the necessary taxes.

But it is an excellent example of private sector involvement in healthcare provisions.

No the US is a terrible example, its an absolute outlier. Once again I post this chart, we should be looking to our European neighbours who share our welfare state model

[img] [/img]

ernie_lynch - Member
jambalaya - Member
Ernie, agreed the US is not the right model for the UK.

But it is an excellent example of private sector involvement in healthcare provisions

It is an excellent example of private sector exclusivity in healthcare.

There are plenty of good examples of private sector involvement. France and Germany spring to mind. As does our own general practice (by and large, there are areas with problems).

If the household and corporate sectors are running surpluses, then givernments should and can run deficits. Unfortunately that simple logic is outside the mainstream economics that lies withing government thinking.

george got there in the end, but not by design

Utter nonsense Jamba the tories have even admitted its all about reducing the state not reducing debt and deficit - as many of the things they have done will actually increase both.

that graph btw is well out of date Now heading for under 8% with the tories openly acknowledged aim to have it under 7%

C'mon TJ get your numbers correct, it's your sector.....

teamhurtmore - Member

Kimbers, good job Osbounre abandoned austerity years ago then. next thing you know the nasty Tories will be ring fencing the NHS. Bas££rds

What's the point of ring-fencing if there's no cuts in public expenditure ? Austerity is generally understood to refer to government measures to reduce public expenditure.

The Financial Times claimed just over a year ago :

[url= https://www.ft.com/content/eb1b710c-9419-11e5-b190-291e94b77c8f ]Autumn Statement does not mark end of austerity, says George Osborne[/url]

So according to you THM both the Financial Times and a Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer don't understand what austerity is.

If nothing else I'm impressed with your own self-belief, however misplaced it might be.

Btw were you wearing your "political neutral" hat when made the sarcastic "nasty Tories" comment?

Generally understood is not synonymous with correct, after all it is generally understood that Jezza is doing a very bad job.

The UK running one of the most expansionary fiscal policies in the developed world right now - as it should. One reason (in addition to stealing) why our economy is performing relatively strongly.

But you are correct to point our that George pulled off an amazing confidence trick by pretending that he was doing something completely different

OOI, in which year did public expenditure fall/ reduce during this period of austerity?

jambalaya - Member

No the US is a terrible example, its an absolute outlier.

The US mix according to your graph appears to be about 50/50 what's wrong with that? Is it a 'terrible example' because it completely undermines the point you're trying to make?

.

grumpysculler - Member

There are plenty of good examples of private sector involvement. France and Germany spring to mind.

According to jambalaya's graph the ratio of private to public involvement in healthcare in France and Germany is very similar to the UK, ie, a bit more private involvement but also a bit more public involvement.

A high level of private involvement doesn't necessarily mean better healthcare, it can just mean that the public healthcare provisions are crap.

I reckon the US model shows this particularly well. The astronomical healthcare costs in the US also shows what can happen when you factor in profits and all the administrative costs associated with that.

Generally understood is not synonymous with correct, after all it is generally understood that Jezza is doing a very bad job.

You mean you think he's doing a good job? I wish you could cross post on here 🙂

It's a word play on bad job dazh, subtle at know especially at this time of night (plus a wee joke with the clairvoyant one)

teamhurtmore - Member

But you are correct to point our that George pulled off an amazing confidence trick by pretending that he was doing something completely different

And the Financial Times agrees with him. The question is whether your interpretation of austerity is the correct one or the Financial Times's interpretation is.

It's a difficult one. I see that I am going to have to give this one a lot of thought.

It's a word play on bad job dazh, subtle at know especially at this time of night

You don't do subtle at ten to eleven ?

Oh wow the single metric graph again.....
Given the utter disparity between rich and poor outcomes in the US what does the graph show? as the saying goes it's not about the size it's what you do with it.

No thought at all Ernie - just look at the economy, it would never have recovered had we had policies of austerity. The fact that it recovered faster than other economies (including those with left wing givernments) also shows how inaccurate you narrative is.

Have you found the years when expenditure fell yet?

How are the nasties doing with delivering their much vaunted surpluses? Has Phil,gione even softer or does he need some of George's Viagra?

not a snidey or sarcastic post here, more of a gently pissed and fuzzily confused one. ('on the waterfront' is on bbc2, mmmmmmm...)

I accept that austerity wasn't really all that. After all, even lefty blogs remind us of how under Osborne the debt went up etc etc, it must have gone somewhere..

How do we reconcile that with the bits that show unequivocally that the NHS was about the only part of public service in which he didn't smake significant cuts? (and as above, it is in crisis anyway partly because of defunding in not-so-obviously-health areas). What did he spend it all on instead or where did he/we take less in tax?

teamhurtmore - Member

shows how inaccurate you narrative is.

What do you mean my narrative? I'm just a simple soul, I don't understand complicated stuff. I was quoting the Financial Times, it's the FT's narrative that you're arguing against, not mine.

If you say so Ernie. But your negative self- assessment seems rather damning to me though. You even seem to understand Corbyn and that defeats most of us, even his closest allies. Don't do yourself down.

Is it just me or has this thread become the Big Hitters O.K. Corral?

teamhurtmore - Member

If you say so Ernie. But your negative self- assessment seems rather damning to me though.

What's "negative" about being a simple soul ?

Have another glass and tell me what you think.

[img] [/img]

Julian - the main problem with the NHS apart for the tories ideological hatred of it is that the tory cuts to local authority budgets destroyed an already badly broken social care leading to major bed blocking. In Edinburgh where there are around 1000 NHS beds at one point last year 300 of them where blocked by people waiting for social care.

And where did the money go?

Tax cuts to the rich
Increased social security due to increased unemployment
Decreased tax take due to contraction in the economy
Increased defence spending on bombing brown people

Sorry Juilan, fell asleep and missed your question

This is a good source to answer your question

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/charts.html?title=Public_Pensions_Chart&chart=00-total&state=UK

Julian's question was :

How do we reconcile that with the bits that show unequivocally that the NHS was about the only part of public service in which he didn't make significant cuts?

As in this :

[img] [/img]

You didn't answer the question you just posted a link to lots of charts which rely heavily on "estimates", which don't seem to show change in real terms, and even then show clear signs of departmental cuts.

Here's another chart which relies on estimates :

[img] [/img]

EDIT : The small increase in Health budget is more than lost by the huge cuts in Communities and Local Government budget.

Teach a man to fish

But well done Ernie, your graph is much better 😉

Excuse me linking a useful source Julian. My bad!!

Large parts of current problem related to social care which is nothing to do with NHS budget.

Going forward health prevention also an issue - also nothing to do with NHS budget.

NHS efficiency could be greater in parts, some parts are ok.

But isolating it from public health and social care is madness. As is the so called competition and internal market

Excuse me linking a useful source Julian.

Well useful to you. Not that you, a political neutral, would want spin Tory policy, oh no, perish the thought.

Here's another unspun take, this time from the Daily Telegraph business section, not that Daily Telegraph business editor understands what "spending cuts" means of course.

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/03/13/budget-2016-more-cuts-are-coming-warns-george-osborne/ ]Budget 2016: George Osborne to unveil £4bn in spending cuts [/url]

[i][b]"Britain faces a fresh round of government spending cuts"[/i][/b]

Good l(liquid) lunch?

After your embarrassing attempts to post vaguely readable posts last night, apparently accumulating with you falling asleep, I suggest you ease off liquid nutrition.

C'mon Ernie you can do better than that. How was your lunch?

Any chance you two can stop turning thread another bitch fight between you?

That would be nice Drac, agreed.

Any chance you two can stop turning thread another bitch fight between you?

If you want to add a constructive and useful point to the thread Drac I can't see a problem. In the meantime challenging the Tory narrative concerning government spending and departmental cuts seems perfectly fair to me. After all the thread is about what to cut to fund the NHS.

There you go Drac, there's your problem!

But I note your good point and sensible modding.

Ernie - don't feed the troll? We all know he is trolling - why not ignore him?

However I do agree that his far right viewpoint needs to be challenged and making his sneering condescension obvious can be a good weapon.

Drac - there is one constant in these bitchfests and its not ernie

However I do agree that his [s]far right[/s] center/center-right viewpoint needs to be challenge

FIFY

Far right looks very different. No welfare state, no universal healthcare for example. Continual tagging of "far-right" is an attempt to discredit pure and simple.

No its not - its the truth. You sit on the far right as well Jamba so of course he looks reasonable and centrist to you. centre right is " one nation" toryism. the neoliberal let the market take care of everything cut government spending to the bone and privatise everything is far right.

😀

Jamba - the difference with you is you remain polite and will debate. the unpleasant troll reffered to is rude, condescending and every post is intended to wind folk up hence I block him altho I am told he still answers my posts

jambalaya - Member

Far right looks very different...

out of idle curiosity, would you describe Corbyn as 'far left'...?

Owen Paterson MP was on Any Questions last week - with a decent panel - discussing spending on the NHS. It was like a scripted story with him trotting out - "You can't just keep spending on the NHS, we've tried that,and our outcomes are poor compared - it's the way we organise [the money] it???"

I think it was Lucie Green (Physicist) on the same show who said even though politically we have increased funding. It may not be enough. Seems logical to me.

Owen Paterson and his think tank seem to think we've got to look to Switzerland, Ireland and South Korea for answers.

UK2020.ORG.UK "http://www.uk2020.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/UK2020-Final-eBook-RGB.pdf"

I haven't read the document but I guess it will just prop up a Neo-Con agenda?

Owen Paterson MP was on Any Questions last week - with a decent panel - discussing spending on the NHS. It was like a scripted story with him trotting out - "You can't just keep spending on the NHS, we've tried that,and our outcomes are poor compared - it's the way we organise [the money] it???"

Well the Tory MP is right - it's not just about money. If it was, the US, which spends way more of its GDP on healthcare than any other country, would have a healthcare system that was the envy of the world, and it hasn't.

It's what you do with the money. For a start don't hand it over to profit-driven private enterprise.

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/money/loans-credit/crippling-pfi-deals-leave-britain-222bn-in-debt-10170214.html ]Crippling PFI deals leave Britain £222bn in debt[/url]

[b][i]"Treasury data analysis unearths the 'enormous financial disaster' of Private Finance Initiatives"[/i][/b]

Medical consensus changes over time. On Lyme it is doing so. Long term antibiotics have good evidence behind it it you want to see it but you don't

Okay. Show me the trials and the cochrane meta-analysis. If not, put up and shut up.

kimbers the joint MMR vacine definitely negatively impacted the health of our middle daughter (in our opinion as parents), there have been long term issues she suffers from to this day, she is now 26. My eldest didn't have it and we paid for the youngest to have the individual jabs. The joint vacine was a cost saving excersize no one asked for amd which tye medical profession amd various governments have been wedded to imo for fear of admitting any mistake. You can post the "nutter" stuff if you like but there are very many parents who feel this way

This is pure gold, defending the lymies and talking shit about mmr - playing into a stereotype there. World class trolling Jamby, as I don't think you're being serious.

tom - whats your expertise to be so definite about something you appear to know little about? Myself a nurse trained to honours level in research so I can read research and understand its validity

cochrane is OK but is always very conservative and slow to react to changes in the science.

there is no need to be so aggressive and condescending in a debate