FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Privatising the NHS?
Privatising the NHS?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
 | |||
"Who here, sees the nhs being privatised? Apparently medical tretments in the usa can be 3 times more expensive,than costs to the nhs. The private companies are here now on the fringes of the nhs. Are these american companies going to get to take over the whole nhs? Esp. With the north atlantic agreement knocking at the door. " no... because medical healthcare is one of the things that are specially trying to get exempt from the new north atlantic agreement..... there is nothing to stop them setting up their own hospitals if they can get enough custom... for example, how many people here have bupa cover??? so there is that option already here.... its just not as "cut-throat" as the american system is..... | |||
"Who here, sees the nhs being privatised? Apparently medical tretments in the usa can be 3 times more expensive,than costs to the nhs. The private companies are here now on the fringes of the nhs. Are these american companies going to get to take over the whole nhs? Esp. With the north atlantic agreement knocking at the door. " The NHS cannot continue under the current model. If someone dreamed up the current NHS model today it would be scrapped as being impossible to fund. People are living longer and curing preventing the diseases that once killed people is very expensive. Something has to change but I have yet to see or hear a politician brave enough to stand up and tell us what we really all should see as being obvious. My opinion is that we have to pick a future date - say Jan 01st 2016 and everyone who turns 18 after that date must have a basic form of medical insurance. Employers provide tax deductible health insurance and the state provides a small emergency welfare fund for those who fall between the gaps. The NHS cannot continue as it is because the % of non working people has already exceeded those in gainful employment. At the time the NHS was created 90% were working and supporting only 10% that were not. | |||
"Who here, sees the nhs being privatised? Apparently medical tretments in the usa can be 3 times more expensive,than costs to the nhs. The private companies are here now on the fringes of the nhs. Are these american companies going to get to take over the whole nhs? Esp. With the north atlantic agreement knocking at the door. no... because medical healthcare is one of the things that are specially trying to get exempt from the new north atlantic agreement..... there is nothing to stop them setting up their own hospitals if they can get enough custom... for example, how many people here have bupa cover??? so there is that option already here.... its just not as "cut-throat" as the american system is....." would the public have an option to opt out of contributing to the nhs? And instead use the money to help pay for medical insurance? If so it would mean less revenue to keep the nhs going | |||
"Who here, sees the nhs being privatised? Apparently medical tretments in the usa can be 3 times more expensive,than costs to the nhs. The private companies are here now on the fringes of the nhs. Are these american companies going to get to take over the whole nhs? Esp. With the north atlantic agreement knocking at the door. The NHS cannot continue under the current model. If someone dreamed up the current NHS model today it would be scrapped as being impossible to fund. People are living longer and curing preventing the diseases that once killed people is very expensive. Something has to change but I have yet to see or hear a politician brave enough to stand up and tell us what we really all should see as being obvious. My opinion is that we have to pick a future date - say Jan 01st 2016 and everyone who turns 18 after that date must have a basic form of medical insurance. Employers provide tax deductible health insurance and the state provides a small emergency welfare fund for those who fall between the gaps. The NHS cannot continue as it is because the % of non working people has already exceeded those in gainful employment. At the time the NHS was created 90% were working and supporting only 10% that were not." the nhs plus other nationalised systems are fundamentaly incompatible to the conservative ideology though isnt it? | |||
"Who here, sees the nhs being privatised? Apparently medical tretments in the usa can be 3 times more expensive,than costs to the nhs. The private companies are here now on the fringes of the nhs. Are these american companies going to get to take over the whole nhs? Esp. With the north atlantic agreement knocking at the door. The NHS cannot continue under the current model. If someone dreamed up the current NHS model today it would be scrapped as being impossible to fund. People are living longer and curing preventing the diseases that once killed people is very expensive. Something has to change but I have yet to see or hear a politician brave enough to stand up and tell us what we really all should see as being obvious. My opinion is that we have to pick a future date - say Jan 01st 2016 and everyone who turns 18 after that date must have a basic form of medical insurance. Employers provide tax deductible health insurance and the state provides a small emergency welfare fund for those who fall between the gaps. The NHS cannot continue as it is because the % of non working people has already exceeded those in gainful employment. At the time the NHS was created 90% were working and supporting only 10% that were not." . Ever wondered why all those people are living longer??... Yeah universal healthcare  ..
Oh I see you mean we should stop having people who can't pay in have it, therefore they die and it costs us less!.
The costs of healthcare would be absolutely the same regardless of how you fund it.
All you can change is efficiency of the people who run it.
Now if someone's running it for profit they have to have even extra savings for which to make a profit from. That sounds a bad idea to me.
Or we can fund it ourselves with no profit made and just get serious about tackling efficiency.
| |||
" the nhs plus other nationalised systems are fundamentaly incompatible to the conservative ideology though isnt it?" It is not about ideology to anyone other than those of a sentimental nature. How can an ever ageing population that is increasing as a percentage against those who are working be supported by those in work? You dont have to be a great mathematician to work it out. An average UK citizen will take more out of the NHS in the last ten years of their life than they ever put into it in taxes. On average, we used to die not long after retirement unless heart attacks, cancer or lung disease gut us beforehand. We now live longer and therefore hit the state with a double whammy... 1) We live longer and therefore take pensions for longer 2) We cost the NHS a fortune keeping us alive from diseases and illnesses that once killed us early. It is nothing to do with right wing or left wing - it should be about maths and it is NOT FAIR to place an ever increasing burden on the coming generation to look after the elderly just because no government ever had the balls to spell out the true cost of pensions and the NHS. | |||
| |||
" the nhs plus other nationalised systems are fundamentaly incompatible to the conservative ideology though isnt it? It is not about ideology to anyone other than those of a sentimental nature. How can an ever ageing population that is increasing as a percentage against those who are working be supported by those in work? You dont have to be a great mathematician to work it out. An average UK citizen will take more out of the NHS in the last ten years of their life than they ever put into it in taxes. On average, we used to die not long after retirement unless heart attacks, cancer or lung disease gut us beforehand. We now live longer and therefore hit the state with a double whammy... 1) We live longer and therefore take pensions for longer 2) We cost the NHS a fortune keeping us alive from diseases and illnesses that once killed us early. It is nothing to do with right wing or left wing - it should be about maths and it is NOT FAIR to place an ever increasing burden on the coming generation to look after the elderly just because no government ever had the balls to spell out the true cost of pensions and the NHS." . So you think older people should just die then! .. Any particular age,I think we should start with people between 50 and 60 as they seem to be the most selfish and bitchy , then once we've got rid of them the rest of us can think of a sensible plan to sort it out | |||
"Ever wondered why all those people are living longer??... Yeah universal healthcare ..
"Again you make highly selective points and twist the meaning. If what you say were correct - then it would only be the UK where people are living longer. It is a worldwide phenomina because the world is better at curing deisease and preventing premature death - but it is expensive. The NHS is a bloated behemoth that needs dismantling and rebuilding under a different model. I had a TIA in Florida in 2013. Within 18 hours they had done every test and identified the likely cause. They said that if I could stay another 12 hours they would fix the heart defect and I would be on my way. I didn't do it and returned to the UK and went to my GP. I had all the same tests done in the UK over a 14 month period and then waited another 4 months to have the operation. In that time I have been asked for follow up appointments from my GP Nurse, the local cardiology department, the secretary of the regional cardiology department and the cardiology department at Wythenshawe where the operation was conducted. Each had their own reason and agenda for requesting me to see them but it was a massive overlap of resources. | |||
" the nhs plus other nationalised systems are fundamentaly incompatible to the conservative ideology though isnt it? It is not about ideology to anyone other than those of a sentimental nature. How can an ever ageing population that is increasing as a percentage against those who are working be supported by those in work? You dont have to be a great mathematician to work it out. An average UK citizen will take more out of the NHS in the last ten years of their life than they ever put into it in taxes. On average, we used to die not long after retirement unless heart attacks, cancer or lung disease gut us beforehand. We now live longer and therefore hit the state with a double whammy... 1) We live longer and therefore take pensions for longer 2) We cost the NHS a fortune keeping us alive from diseases and illnesses that once killed us early. It is nothing to do with right wing or left wing - it should be about maths and it is NOT FAIR to place an ever increasing burden on the coming generation to look after the elderly just because no government ever had the balls to spell out the true cost of pensions and the NHS.. So you think older people should just die then! .. Any particular age,I think we should start with people between 50 and 60 as they seem to be the most selfish and bitchy , then once we've got rid of them the rest of us can think of a sensible plan to sort it out "And again - very predictable. Where did I say that? I said that we have take the responsibility for the care of ageing people off the shoulders of the next generation. Create a model where they can be responsible for their own healthcare and pensions. The alternative is ever increasing immigration and population growth to raise more taxes to pay for people who are living longer. Might sound harsh but that is the way it is. If you want to change the population growth ponzi scheme then you need to change the system. | |||
| |||
"Maybe get the funding from cutting back on the EU and over seas aid we provide. " You are talking peanuts though in the greater scheme of things. This is labours idea. Create a mansion tax and fix the current problem. Unfortunately, throwing ever more money at the NHS will not stop the ever increasing demands that it will place on society. The NHS itself has to be changed so that it cant keep sucking ever more money off the tax payer in a relentless and exponential fashion. When you have a very old, but very loved car - at some stage it becomes too expensive to maintain and you need to change it for something more modern and in keeping with the world today. | |||
"Ever wondered why all those people are living longer??... Yeah universal healthcare ..
Again you make highly selective points and twist the meaning.
If what you say were correct - then it would only be the UK where people are living longer. It is a worldwide phenomina because the world is better at curing deisease and preventing premature death - but it is expensive.
The NHS is a bloated behemoth that needs dismantling and rebuilding under a different model.
I had a TIA in Florida in 2013. Within 18 hours they had done every test and identified the likely cause. They said that if I could stay another 12 hours they would fix the heart defect and I would be on my way. I didn't do it and returned to the UK and went to my GP. I had all the same tests done in the UK over a 14 month period and then waited another 4 months to have the operation. In that time I have been asked for follow up appointments from my GP Nurse, the local cardiology department, the secretary of the regional cardiology department and the cardiology department at Wythenshawe where the operation was conducted. Each had their own reason and agenda for requesting me to see them but it was a massive overlap of resources.". Now I couldn't agree with you more on all those last points.... But that just comes down to having better management with maybe some easier way to fire people who are grossly incompetent, management included. What I disagree with is this myth that the younger generation shouldn't pay for their parents and grandparents because there'd prefer to put an extension on the kitchen, it's just another symptom of a me me me society which drags down our species and holds progress back. | |||
| |||
"The US healthcare system is not something we should be copying. There is massive wastage amounting to $750bn every year. If the NHS is to change to an insurance style system I'd like something akin to the Republic of Ireland. A portion of NHS style care is kept for the elderly, disabled and poorest. The working population pay via insurance for capped fees on services. " Agreed | |||
"Ever wondered why all those people are living longer??... Yeah universal healthcare ..
Again you make highly selective points and twist the meaning.
If what you say were correct - then it would only be the UK where people are living longer. It is a worldwide phenomina because the world is better at curing deisease and preventing premature death - but it is expensive.
The NHS is a bloated behemoth that needs dismantling and rebuilding under a different model.
I had a TIA in Florida in 2013. Within 18 hours they had done every test and identified the likely cause. They said that if I could stay another 12 hours they would fix the heart defect and I would be on my way. I didn't do it and returned to the UK and went to my GP. I had all the same tests done in the UK over a 14 month period and then waited another 4 months to have the operation. In that time I have been asked for follow up appointments from my GP Nurse, the local cardiology department, the secretary of the regional cardiology department and the cardiology department at Wythenshawe where the operation was conducted. Each had their own reason and agenda for requesting me to see them but it was a massive overlap of resources.". I also happen to know wythenshawe hospital very well, i was born there and my sister and my aunty work there, it's an incredible hospital with some of the best surgeons in the country, and from what they tell me in family conversations the management are incredibly wasteful and extremely well paid and nobody ever gets fired regardless of anything that happens. | |||
"Ever wondered why all those people are living longer??... Yeah universal healthcare ..
Again you make highly selective points and twist the meaning.
If what you say were correct - then it would only be the UK where people are living longer. It is a worldwide phenomina because the world is better at curing deisease and preventing premature death - but it is expensive.
The NHS is a bloated behemoth that needs dismantling and rebuilding under a different model.
I had a TIA in Florida in 2013. Within 18 hours they had done every test and identified the likely cause. They said that if I could stay another 12 hours they would fix the heart defect and I would be on my way. I didn't do it and returned to the UK and went to my GP. I had all the same tests done in the UK over a 14 month period and then waited another 4 months to have the operation. In that time I have been asked for follow up appointments from my GP Nurse, the local cardiology department, the secretary of the regional cardiology department and the cardiology department at Wythenshawe where the operation was conducted. Each had their own reason and agenda for requesting me to see them but it was a massive overlap of resources..
I also happen to know wythenshawe hospital very well, i was born there and my sister and my aunty work there, it's an incredible hospital with some of the best surgeons in the country, and from what they tell me in family conversations the management are incredibly wasteful and extremely well paid and nobody ever gets fired regardless of anything that happens."Seems like accountability and transparency are the among the biggest problems holding the NHS back | |||
"Ever wondered why all those people are living longer??... Yeah universal healthcare ..
Again you make highly selective points and twist the meaning.
If what you say were correct - then it would only be the UK where people are living longer. It is a worldwide phenomina because the world is better at curing deisease and preventing premature death - but it is expensive.
The NHS is a bloated behemoth that needs dismantling and rebuilding under a different model.
I had a TIA in Florida in 2013. Within 18 hours they had done every test and identified the likely cause. They said that if I could stay another 12 hours they would fix the heart defect and I would be on my way. I didn't do it and returned to the UK and went to my GP. I had all the same tests done in the UK over a 14 month period and then waited another 4 months to have the operation. In that time I have been asked for follow up appointments from my GP Nurse, the local cardiology department, the secretary of the regional cardiology department and the cardiology department at Wythenshawe where the operation was conducted. Each had their own reason and agenda for requesting me to see them but it was a massive overlap of resources..
I also happen to know wythenshawe hospital very well, i was born there and my sister and my aunty work there, it's an incredible hospital with some of the best surgeons in the country, and from what they tell me in family conversations the management are incredibly wasteful and extremely well paid and nobody ever gets fired regardless of anything that happens.
Seems like accountability and transparency are the among the biggest problems holding the NHS back" | |||
" the nhs plus other nationalised systems are fundamentaly incompatible to the conservative ideology though isnt it? It is not about ideology to anyone other than those of a sentimental nature. How can an ever ageing population that is increasing as a percentage against those who are working be supported by those in work? You dont have to be a great mathematician to work it out. An average UK citizen will take more out of the NHS in the last ten years of their life than they ever put into it in taxes. On average, we used to die not long after retirement unless heart attacks, cancer or lung disease gut us beforehand. We now live longer and therefore hit the state with a double whammy... 1) We live longer and therefore take pensions for longer 2) We cost the NHS a fortune keeping us alive from diseases and illnesses that once killed us early. It is nothing to do with right wing or left wing - it should be about maths and it is NOT FAIR to place an ever increasing burden on the coming generation to look after the elderly just because no government ever had the balls to spell out the true cost of pensions and the NHS." i do agree to an extent what you say, however, as stated, private profit centered organisations, unemployed, people wanting non essential treatment, idiots wasting the nhs time (many years ago i worked in A & E) but as stated miss management and needless beurocract managers introduced during thatcher's term in office. And exhorbitant (did i spell that right) costs for materials and supplies from private suppliers. True.. Possiby being on a and e i didnt see the whole picture, but thats what my collegues and myself felt. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Do people really appreciate the numbers? £30 billion funding gap by 2020. Ageing population supported by a reducing workforce. The elephant in the room is the out of control deficit which means the savage cuts to the public sector coming in the next few years will make the cuts we've had seem soft. Talking about foreign aid and EU budgets or sacking the odd manager here or there are tickles! The choice as I see it is either a significant increase in taxation or a ground up reorganisation that involves a significant element of privatisation of the service. Sentiment is expensive, are we all willing to pay the price? " take the banks.. The incredible losses they caused through mishandling on an incredible scale., yet not one of them has lost their job, not even reprimanded, they coould do it all again and then what? Bail em out again.? I'm not being sentimental, just seems people are too keen to write the nhs off instead of fixing whats wrecking it. | |||
"Do people really appreciate the numbers? £30 billion funding gap by 2020. Ageing population supported by a reducing workforce. The elephant in the room is the out of control deficit which means the savage cuts to the public sector coming in the next few years will make the cuts we've had seem soft. Talking about foreign aid and EU budgets or sacking the odd manager here or there are tickles! The choice as I see it is either a significant increase in taxation or a ground up reorganisation that involves a significant element of privatisation of the service. Sentiment is expensive, are we all willing to pay the price? take the banks.. The incredible losses they caused through mishandling on an incredible scale., yet not one of them has lost their job, not even reprimanded, they coould do it all again and then what? Bail em out again.? I'm not being sentimental, just seems people are too keen to write the nhs off instead of fixing whats wrecking it." Blaming the banks is easy but collectively as a nation we were going credit crazy and we didn't have to take 120% mortgages just because they were available. | |||
"Who here, sees the nhs being privatised? Apparently medical tretments in the usa can be 3 times more expensive,than costs to the nhs. The private companies are here now on the fringes of the nhs. Are these american companies going to get to take over the whole nhs? Esp. With the north atlantic agreement knocking at the door. no... because medical healthcare is one of the things that are specially trying to get exempt from the new north atlantic agreement..... there is nothing to stop them setting up their own hospitals if they can get enough custom... for example, how many people here have bupa cover??? so there is that option already here.... its just not as "cut-throat" as the american system is....." . I have BUPA cover and have to pay additional tax on it as it is classified as a benefit in kind. The government save on health care costs and also receive additional tax on the benefit . | |||
"Do people really appreciate the numbers? £30 billion funding gap by 2020. Ageing population supported by a reducing workforce. The elephant in the room is the out of control deficit which means the savage cuts to the public sector coming in the next few years will make the cuts we've had seem soft. Talking about foreign aid and EU budgets or sacking the odd manager here or there are tickles! The choice as I see it is either a significant increase in taxation or a ground up reorganisation that involves a significant element of privatisation of the service. Sentiment is expensive, are we all willing to pay the price? take the banks.. The incredible losses they caused through mishandling on an incredible scale., yet not one of them has lost their job, not even reprimanded, they coould do it all again and then what? Bail em out again.? I'm not being sentimental, just seems people are too keen to write the nhs off instead of fixing whats wrecking it. Blaming the banks is easy but collectively as a nation we were going credit crazy and we didn't have to take 120% mortgages just because they were available." It's difficult though isn't it, for some people? Getting on the property ladder et al... Some may think, the product is available to me, I'm sure I'll be able to pay. I've given the landlord so much over the last x years, finally a chance at our own place.... Plus, the practice of fractional reserve banking doesn't help. Building more houses (privately or by the state) may have though. I read somewhere that there may be, roughly, the same number of empty properties as there are homeless people - fixing them up and getting occupants in them may help too. | |||
"Do people really appreciate the numbers? £30 billion funding gap by 2020. Ageing population supported by a reducing workforce. The elephant in the room is the out of control deficit which means the savage cuts to the public sector coming in the next few years will make the cuts we've had seem soft. Talking about foreign aid and EU budgets or sacking the odd manager here or there are tickles! The choice as I see it is either a significant increase in taxation or a ground up reorganisation that involves a significant element of privatisation of the service. Sentiment is expensive, are we all willing to pay the price? " . Well said . Sadly lots of people turn a blind eye to reality | |||
"Ever wondered why all those people are living longer??... Yeah universal healthcare ..
Again you make highly selective points and twist the meaning.
If what you say were correct - then it would only be the UK where people are living longer. It is a worldwide phenomina because the world is better at curing deisease and preventing premature death - but it is expensive.
The NHS is a bloated behemoth that needs dismantling and rebuilding under a different model.
I had a TIA in Florida in 2013. Within 18 hours they had done every test and identified the likely cause. They said that if I could stay another 12 hours they would fix the heart defect and I would be on my way. I didn't do it and returned to the UK and went to my GP. I had all the same tests done in the UK over a 14 month period and then waited another 4 months to have the operation. In that time I have been asked for follow up appointments from my GP Nurse, the local cardiology department, the secretary of the regional cardiology department and the cardiology department at Wythenshawe where the operation was conducted. Each had their own reason and agenda for requesting me to see them but it was a massive overlap of resources."I agree that does sound like a waste of resources could use some efficiency improvements. How much did it cost for all those tests in the USA, and how much would the operation cost? There is no way the NHS would pay $60k or whatever the operation would cost to keep the doctor in a gated community, top golf club and Porsche. The fact is that the biggest cause of bankruptcy in the USA among the elderly is medical bills because they cannot afford the $10k+ per annum insurance costs. Private is OK if the treatment is free at the point of delivery and hospitals are paid on outcomes. That is they are not paid on treatments given but how many people recover from their ailment. This won't happen because they cannot be sure how much it would cost to treat a particular patient. | |||
 | |||
"Ever wondered why all those people are living longer??... Yeah universal healthcare ..
Again you make highly selective points and twist the meaning.
If what you say were correct - then it would only be the UK where people are living longer. It is a worldwide phenomina because the world is better at curing deisease and preventing premature death - but it is expensive.
The NHS is a bloated behemoth that needs dismantling and rebuilding under a different model.
I had a TIA in Florida in 2013. Within 18 hours they had done every test and identified the likely cause. They said that if I could stay another 12 hours they would fix the heart defect and I would be on my way. I didn't do it and returned to the UK and went to my GP. I had all the same tests done in the UK over a 14 month period and then waited another 4 months to have the operation. In that time I have been asked for follow up appointments from my GP Nurse, the local cardiology department, the secretary of the regional cardiology department and the cardiology department at Wythenshawe where the operation was conducted. Each had their own reason and agenda for requesting me to see them but it was a massive overlap of resources.
I agree that does sound like a waste of resources could use some efficiency improvements. How much did it cost for all those tests in the USA, and how much would the operation cost? There is no way the NHS would pay $60k or whatever the operation would cost to keep the doctor in a gated community, top golf club and Porsche.
The fact is that the biggest cause of bankruptcy in the USA among the elderly is medical bills because they cannot afford the $10k+ per annum insurance costs.
Private is OK if the treatment is free at the point of delivery and hospitals are paid on outcomes. That is they are not paid on treatments given but how many people recover from their ailment. This won't happen because they cannot be sure how much it would cost to treat a particular patient."The bill was $17,000 for the tests but this did include a CT and MRI scan as will arterial ultrasounds and god knows what else. The point with medical insurance is that actuaries should be able to assess contributions from an early age which should keep costs down. I think that there should be a basic level of state cover but that from a given date in the future everyone who turns 18 should start to contribute to a phi policy and this can be topped up by employer contributions. It seems strange to me at the moment when the NHS is so under pressure that phi contributions are seen as a benefit in kind. | |||
| |||
| |||
" take the banks.. The incredible losses they caused through mishandling on an incredible scale., yet not one of them has lost their job, not even reprimanded, they coould do it all again and then what? Bail em out again.? I'm not being sentimental, just seems people are too keen to write the nhs off instead of fixing whats wrecking it." Your are right that the banks hugely messed up, but the normal state of affairs is that the banks are not state funded and as horrendous as it was to have to bail them out, we will eventually get our money back. Plenty of bankers lost their jobs by the way. I'm certainly not writing the NHS off, you don't just write off one of the greatest achievements in the history of the UK, but I do believe the reality of how we choose to fund it needs to be addressed now. I agree with an earlier poster, politicians want to be elected above all else, but this needs real leadership. The public have to be willing to pay significantly more or face privatisation. | |||
"Ever wondered why all those people are living longer??... Yeah universal healthcare ..
Again you make highly selective points and twist the meaning.
If what you say were correct - then it would only be the UK where people are living longer. It is a worldwide phenomina because the world is better at curing deisease and preventing premature death - but it is expensive.
The NHS is a bloated behemoth that needs dismantling and rebuilding under a different model.
I had a TIA in Florida in 2013. Within 18 hours they had done every test and identified the likely cause. They said that if I could stay another 12 hours they would fix the heart defect and I would be on my way. I didn't do it and returned to the UK and went to my GP. I had all the same tests done in the UK over a 14 month period and then waited another 4 months to have the operation. In that time I have been asked for follow up appointments from my GP Nurse, the local cardiology department, the secretary of the regional cardiology department and the cardiology department at Wythenshawe where the operation was conducted. Each had their own reason and agenda for requesting me to see them but it was a massive overlap of resources.
I agree that does sound like a waste of resources could use some efficiency improvements. How much did it cost for all those tests in the USA, and how much would the operation cost? There is no way the NHS would pay $60k or whatever the operation would cost to keep the doctor in a gated community, top golf club and Porsche.
The fact is that the biggest cause of bankruptcy in the USA among the elderly is medical bills because they cannot afford the $10k+ per annum insurance costs.
Private is OK if the treatment is free at the point of delivery and hospitals are paid on outcomes. That is they are not paid on treatments given but how many people recover from their ailment. This won't happen because they cannot be sure how much it would cost to treat a particular patient.
The bill was $17,000 for the tests but this did include a CT and MRI scan as will arterial ultrasounds and god knows what else.
The point with medical insurance is that actuaries should be able to assess contributions from an early age which should keep costs down. I think that there should be a basic level of state cover but that from a given date in the future everyone who turns 18 should start to contribute to a phi policy and this can be topped up by employer contributions.
It seems strange to me at the moment when the NHS is so under pressure that phi contributions are seen as a benefit in kind."Employers already pay 10% NI contributions. How do you think they would fund the extra insurance? Just as they do now by taking it off your salary and paying you 10% less. The other issue with employer contributions is they can then treat you like shit knowing if you quit that you and your family will end up with a 2nd rate health plan that has lots of exclusions, or worse no health plan. If you look at the USA the health care providers make massive political campaign contributions which makes them pretty much immune to healthcare reform. We may have some inefficiencies in our health service but it still provides good value for money compared to the alternatives. Also the NHS has tremendous buying power when buying new drugs from pharmaceutical companies. | |||
| |||
" take the banks.. The incredible losses they caused through mishandling on an incredible scale., yet not one of them has lost their job, not even reprimanded, they coould do it all again and then what? Bail em out again.? I'm not being sentimental, just seems people are too keen to write the nhs off instead of fixing whats wrecking it. Your are right that the banks hugely messed up, but the normal state of affairs is that the banks are not state funded and as horrendous as it was to have to bail them out, we will eventually get our money back. Plenty of bankers lost their jobs by the way. I'm certainly not writing the NHS off, you don't just write off one of the greatest achievements in the history of the UK, but I do believe the reality of how we choose to fund it needs to be addressed now. I agree with an earlier poster, politicians want to be elected above all else, but this needs real leadership. The public have to be willing to pay significantly more or face privatisation. " ok i get what you say about the bankers.. And i have my fingers x'd the money is paid back eventually. My point was, have they learnt the lesssons?.. I dont pretend to know a lot about the economics.. i personally wont mind paying more in taxes if it meant a better infrastructure all round.. Scandinavian countries are voted the best places to live in yet pay high taxes. I suppose paying insurance makes people mor accountable for their own health, however, i saw bad management when i worked there and not a great lot reaching patients | |||
 . | |||
"Ever wondered why all those people are living longer??... Yeah universal healthcare ..
Again you make highly selective points and twist the meaning.
If what you say were correct - then it would only be the UK where people are living longer. It is a worldwide phenomina because the world is better at curing deisease and preventing premature death - but it is expensive.
The NHS is a bloated behemoth that needs dismantling and rebuilding under a different model.
I had a TIA in Florida in 2013. Within 18 hours they had done every test and identified the likely cause. They said that if I could stay another 12 hours they would fix the heart defect and I would be on my way. I didn't do it and returned to the UK and went to my GP. I had all the same tests done in the UK over a 14 month period and then waited another 4 months to have the operation. In that time I have been asked for follow up appointments from my GP Nurse, the local cardiology department, the secretary of the regional cardiology department and the cardiology department at Wythenshawe where the operation was conducted. Each had their own reason and agenda for requesting me to see them but it was a massive overlap of resources..
Now I couldn't agree with you more on all those last points....
But that just comes down to having better management with maybe some easier way to fire people who are grossly incompetent, management included.
What I disagree with is this myth that the younger generation shouldn't pay for their parents and grandparents because there'd prefer to put an extension on the kitchen, it's just another symptom of a me me me society which drags down our species and holds progress back."i fully agree! | |||
"Ever wondered why all those people are living longer??... Yeah universal healthcare ..
Again you make highly selective points and twist the meaning.
If what you say were correct - then it would only be the UK where people are living longer. It is a worldwide phenomina because the world is better at curing deisease and preventing premature death - but it is expensive.
The NHS is a bloated behemoth that needs dismantling and rebuilding under a different model.
I had a TIA in Florida in 2013. Within 18 hours they had done every test and identified the likely cause. They said that if I could stay another 12 hours they would fix the heart defect and I would be on my way. I didn't do it and returned to the UK and went to my GP. I had all the same tests done in the UK over a 14 month period and then waited another 4 months to have the operation. In that time I have been asked for follow up appointments from my GP Nurse, the local cardiology department, the secretary of the regional cardiology department and the cardiology department at Wythenshawe where the operation was conducted. Each had their own reason and agenda for requesting me to see them but it was a massive overlap of resources..
Now I couldn't agree with you more on all those last points....
But that just comes down to having better management with maybe some easier way to fire people who are grossly incompetent, management included.
What I disagree with is this myth that the younger generation shouldn't pay for their parents and grandparents because there'd prefer to put an extension on the kitchen, it's just another symptom of a me me me society which drags down our species and holds progress back.
i fully agree!"Unlike the baby boomers who have pissed all the money up the wall with unfunded pensions, massive government debt and huge house price rises, we have left our kids and grandkids with: 1 trillion pound debt that costs more to service each year in interest than we spend on our army A low wage economy Mortgages at 10x average income Education fees that will take 30 years to pay off or maybe never If they are lucky they will have a pension that is based on contributions rather than final salary. If I was young today I would be pretty fucked off at the legacy of debt we have left them because we wanted low taxes, expensive houses and no will to pay the real price for anything | |||
| |||
| |||
"Who here, sees the nhs being privatised? Apparently medical tretments in the usa can be 3 times more expensive,than costs to the nhs. The private companies are here now on the fringes of the nhs. Are these american companies going to get to take over the whole nhs? Esp. With the north atlantic agreement knocking at the door. The NHS cannot continue under the current model. If someone dreamed up the current NHS model today it would be scrapped as being impossible to fund. People are living longer and curing preventing the diseases that once killed people is very expensive. Something has to change but I have yet to see or hear a politician brave enough to stand up and tell us what we really all should see as being obvious. My opinion is that we have to pick a future date - say Jan 01st 2016 and everyone who turns 18 after that date must have a basic form of medical insurance. Employers provide tax deductible health insurance and the state provides a small emergency welfare fund for those who fall between the gaps. The NHS cannot continue as it is because the % of non working people has already exceeded those in gainful employment. At the time the NHS was created 90% were working and supporting only 10% that were not." What utter diatribe your last paragraph is. Unemployment is no higher today than it was at the inception of the NHS following the Beveridge report in 1948. The problem the NHS has is that it is a victim of it's own success. In 1948 the NHS provided acute incidence healthcare, now it has ballooned into 'all things for all people' and we can now manage many conditions that were previously fatal such as diabetes, hiv and all sorts of others. The cost of this 'management' has also ballooned out of all proportion. Acute healthcare is eminently affordable, life improving and management of serious illness is not in the current funding formula. It's a simple fix - pay more national insurance and then it will become affordable. It isn't rocket science to fund the nhs properly, unfortunately tax raising is political suicide at present. | |||
| |||
"Who here, sees the nhs being privatised? Apparently medical tretments in the usa can be 3 times more expensive,than costs to the nhs. The private companies are here now on the fringes of the nhs. Are these american companies going to get to take over the whole nhs? Esp. With the north atlantic agreement knocking at the door. The NHS cannot continue under the current model. If someone dreamed up the current NHS model today it would be scrapped as being impossible to fund. People are living longer and curing preventing the diseases that once killed people is very expensive. Something has to change but I have yet to see or hear a politician brave enough to stand up and tell us what we really all should see as being obvious. My opinion is that we have to pick a future date - say Jan 01st 2016 and everyone who turns 18 after that date must have a basic form of medical insurance. Employers provide tax deductible health insurance and the state provides a small emergency welfare fund for those who fall between the gaps. The NHS cannot continue as it is because the % of non working people has already exceeded those in gainful employment. At the time the NHS was created 90% were working and supporting only 10% that were not. What utter diatribe your last paragraph is. Unemployment is no higher today than it was at the inception of the NHS following the Beveridge report in 1948. The problem the NHS has is that it is a victim of it's own success. In 1948 the NHS provided acute incidence healthcare, now it has ballooned into 'all things for all people' and we can now manage many conditions that were previously fatal such as diabetes, hiv and all sorts of others. The cost of this 'management' has also ballooned out of all proportion. Acute healthcare is eminently affordable, life improving and management of serious illness is not in the current funding formula. It's a simple fix - pay more national insurance and then it will become affordable. It isn't rocket science to fund the nhs properly, unfortunately tax raising is political suicide at present." You should try reading the words that were written as opposed to what you think might give you an opportunity to gave a go at someone. At no point were the unemployed mentioned. Look at the number of people in gainful employment as a percentage of the entire population. The model today is not how it was when the NHS was created. Just after WW2 you were expected to die within a couple of years of retiring - if you were lucky enough to still be alive at retirement age. | |||
" What utter diatribe your last paragraph is. Unemployment is no higher today than it was at the inception of the NHS following the Beveridge report in 1948. " You clearly don't understand the ageing population time bomb that is facing the UK. You've missed the point if you think the issue is unemployment. If the trend continues and we try to maintain the same system then an ever increasing bill and a reducing percentage of people of working age will at the least mean regular tax rises. The government has already been 'robbing Peter to pay Paul' by ring fencing the NHS. | |||
| |||
"Part of the NHS will have to be privatised otherwise there will be no NHS. People abuse the the system and the management is very corrupt this cannot go on. If I put my whole argument it would be very unpopular. As for the political parties,well Labour privatised parts of NHS so voting labour will not save it." thats my whole point, too many managers creaming the money off, ring fencing etc.. Plus tony blair changing the labour party, he did so much damage to the labour party i dont really know what they stand for | |||
"Who here, sees the nhs being privatised? Apparently medical tretments in the usa can be 3 times more expensive,than costs to the nhs. The private companies are here now on the fringes of the nhs. Are these american companies going to get to take over the whole nhs? Esp. With the north atlantic agreement knocking at the door. " | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"The NHS is being privatised, but few people realise it. Medical companies like BMI, Care UK, Spire and even Virgin now run more medical facilities under the NHS guise than the NHS themselves provide directly. All catering, cleaning and maintenance services are carried out by sub-contractors in the majority of hospitals." And home care is subcontracted out too.  | |||
| |||
"Ever wondered why all those people are living longer??... Yeah universal healthcare ..
Again you make highly selective points and twist the meaning.
If what you say were correct - then it would only be the UK where people are living longer. It is a worldwide phenomina because the world is better at curing deisease and preventing premature death - but it is expensive.
The NHS is a bloated behemoth that needs dismantling and rebuilding under a different model.
I had a TIA in Florida in 2013. Within 18 hours they had done every test and identified the likely cause. They said that if I could stay another 12 hours they would fix the heart defect and I would be on my way. I didn't do it and returned to the UK and went to my GP. I had all the same tests done in the UK over a 14 month period and then waited another 4 months to have the operation. In that time I have been asked for follow up appointments from my GP Nurse, the local cardiology department, the secretary of the regional cardiology department and the cardiology department at Wythenshawe where the operation was conducted. Each had their own reason and agenda for requesting me to see them but it was a massive overlap of resources..
Now I couldn't agree with you more on all those last points....
But that just comes down to having better management with maybe some easier way to fire people who are grossly incompetent, management included.
What I disagree with is this myth that the younger generation shouldn't pay for their parents and grandparents because there'd prefer to put an extension on the kitchen, it's just another symptom of a me me me society which drags down our species and holds progress back.
i fully agree!
Unlike the baby boomers who have pissed all the money up the wall with unfunded pensions, massive government debt and huge house price rises, we have left our kids and grandkids with:
1 trillion pound debt that costs more to service each year in interest than we spend on our army
A low wage economy
Mortgages at 10x average income
Education fees that will take 30 years to pay off or maybe never
If they are lucky they will have a pension that is based on contributions rather than final salary.
If I was young today I would be pretty fucked off at the legacy of debt we have left them because we wanted low taxes, expensive houses and no will to pay the real price for anything
". I wish you applied that theory of leaving your kids something to your own life.... Quite a few people bang on about leaving their children and grandchildren a debt legacy, but I've noticed those same people are quite happy to use up genuine non renewable resources like, copper and tin and silver and more importantly oil... Yeah I don't see you lot cycling everywhere or cancelling that foreign holiday or stopping that trip to Florida for tests or still buying strawberries in December. You bunch of fucking hypocrites you slag someone like brand of for hypocrisy, then drive around in cars all day, fly to foreign places to burn your skin for a few months all the time consuming massive amounts of precarious resources that will never last for your CHILDREN. but then have the audacity to say making poor people well will ruin the lives of future generations... Ffs | |||
"It's a right wing nuts dream to have a USA style privatised system. Americans have a shorter lifespan than us, in part due to worse healthcare. Costs are higher, excluded conditions and treatments are standard and somebody expects to make a lot of profit from us all. No thanks." It might be helpful if you preceded this by the following statement... What you are about to read is an opinion of myself alone. It has no basis on facts and is a complete figment of my own wild imagination. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Here's my opinion. I think that the NHS should be run as a private enterprise - but paid for by the Taxpayer. In other words, remove the government from the equation and let those that actually know what they are doing run the show. Government run organisations are ALWAYS run inefficiently. " I would not argue with that. Our system of government is not compatible with state funded organisations because the funding becomes a political plaything due to the very nature of our adversarial political system. The very same reason that Nationalised industries didn't work and won't work. Give any political party in power several hundred billions worth of funding and watch them take on projects that have a political leaning as opposed to one in the National interest. If we had a stable upper house that could actually manage large state funded initiatives then it might be a different story. | |||
"Ever wondered why all those people are living longer??... Yeah universal healthcare ..
Again you make highly selective points and twist the meaning.
If what you say were correct - then it would only be the UK where people are living longer. It is a worldwide phenomina because the world is better at curing deisease and preventing premature death - but it is expensive.
The NHS is a bloated behemoth that needs dismantling and rebuilding under a different model.
I had a TIA in Florida in 2013. Within 18 hours they had done every test and identified the likely cause. They said that if I could stay another 12 hours they would fix the heart defect and I would be on my way. I didn't do it and returned to the UK and went to my GP. I had all the same tests done in the UK over a 14 month period and then waited another 4 months to have the operation. In that time I have been asked for follow up appointments from my GP Nurse, the local cardiology department, the secretary of the regional cardiology department and the cardiology department at Wythenshawe where the operation was conducted. Each had their own reason and agenda for requesting me to see them but it was a massive overlap of resources..
Now I couldn't agree with you more on all those last points....
But that just comes down to having better management with maybe some easier way to fire people who are grossly incompetent, management included.
What I disagree with is this myth that the younger generation shouldn't pay for their parents and grandparents because there'd prefer to put an extension on the kitchen, it's just another symptom of a me me me society which drags down our species and holds progress back.
i fully agree!
Unlike the baby boomers who have pissed all the money up the wall with unfunded pensions, massive government debt and huge house price rises, we have left our kids and grandkids with:
1 trillion pound debt that costs more to service each year in interest than we spend on our army
A low wage economy
Mortgages at 10x average income
Education fees that will take 30 years to pay off or maybe never
If they are lucky they will have a pension that is based on contributions rather than final salary.
If I was young today I would be pretty fucked off at the legacy of debt we have left them because we wanted low taxes, expensive houses and no will to pay the real price for anything
.
I wish you applied that theory of leaving your kids something to your own life....
Quite a few people bang on about leaving their children and grandchildren a debt legacy, but I've noticed those same people are quite happy to use up genuine non renewable resources like, copper and tin and silver and more importantly oil... Yeah I don't see you lot cycling everywhere or cancelling that foreign holiday or stopping that trip to Florida for tests or still buying strawberries in December.
You bunch of fucking hypocrites you slag someone like brand of for hypocrisy, then drive around in cars all day, fly to foreign places to burn your skin for a few months all the time consuming massive amounts of precarious resources that will never last for your CHILDREN.
but then have the audacity to say making poor people well will ruin the lives of future generations...
Ffs"That is an outrageous statement to make calling people on here hypocrites when you don't even know us. As for the running out of resources that will never happen. All that happens is they become more expensive and alternative materials are found or previously expensive extraction methods become economically viable. In the case if materials like copper how much ends up in landfill? Fuck all, because it is so expensive it is recycled very efficiently As for flying, aircraft engines are becomming more efficient. The fact that we could replace a substantial part of our power generation with nuclear which is safer than coal, with annual deaths in the industry closer to single figures than the 1000s per annum from coal industry related deaths. One day we might even have fusion that would provide unlimited clean energy. There are lots of good reasons for using less resources such as protecting our environment from pollution. But not going on holiday is a stupid suggestion, cutting down on eating meat and reducing methane production from cows is more effective since it is 20x greater at trapping heat than CO2. | |||
"The US system is generally awful, as the health providers screw as many tests to be done, often totally not needed, in order to claim from the insurance. It doesn't always follow that more testing is better, if it is not needed, and is just a cash cow for health providers. People die in the USA much younger than here, partially due to their poor healthcare service that doesn't cover everything that is needed. Money counters at the private insurance companies are the people who decide whether you get treatment, live or die. The individual has no say in it. Many people also get coverage via their employers, so it's part funded via work. When you leave work, or lose your job, you no longer have health care insurance. Want a system like that? Farage spoke out in favour of a US type system, and many of the Conservative MPs have stakes in private health companies that are pressuring government to let them take over services. Shirley Williams - LibDem, was forceful in pushing through the laws that have helped speed up privatisation, which is one reason they'll be decimated in the General Election. The NHS has faults, as every huge department does, but it's definitely better than being profit driven, for people who care nothing for your life." Your suggestion that the US Healthcare system is awful is simply not correct. I work two months a year there and have roles in three different companies. Our corporate responsibilities are taken very seriously and we provide good levels of insurance to our employees. One had a heart attack in October 2012 and had the quadruple bypass straight from A&E. His care and ongoing rehabilitation has been first class. My own personal experience was also first class. That said, this is not about choosing an American system or keeping the NHS untouched. The story is about modernising the NHS and how this can be achieved. | |||
"Reading this thread, one could be forgiven that there are only two healthcare options in the world. The American system or the NHS. This is not the case. The NHS is not fit for purpose and needs a ground up overhaul into something fit for the modern world. The only people who won't accept that as fact are in denial about our population demographics. You can't keep funding a health care system designed around human demographics that existed 70 years ago. Society, life expectancy and the cost of care have changed beyond recognition." I did suggest the Singaporean model | |||
"Reading this thread, one could be forgiven that there are only two healthcare options in the world. The American system or the NHS. This is not the case. The NHS is not fit for purpose and needs a ground up overhaul into something fit for the modern world. The only people who won't accept that as fact are in denial about our population demographics. You can't keep funding a health care system designed around human demographics that existed 70 years ago. Society, life expectancy and the cost of care have changed beyond recognition. I did suggest the Singaporean model "Pause...... Bit of google research required before comment  | |||
| |||
"The US system is generally awful, as the health providers screw as many tests to be done, often totally not needed, in order to claim from the insurance. It doesn't always follow that more testing is better, if it is not needed, and is just a cash cow for health providers. People die in the USA much younger than here, partially due to their poor healthcare service that doesn't cover everything that is needed. Money counters at the private insurance companies are the people who decide whether you get treatment, live or die. The individual has no say in it. Many people also get coverage via their employers, so it's part funded via work. When you leave work, or lose your job, you no longer have health care insurance. Want a system like that? Farage spoke out in favour of a US type system, and many of the Conservative MPs have stakes in private health companies that are pressuring government to let them take over services. Shirley Williams - LibDem, was forceful in pushing through the laws that have helped speed up privatisation, which is one reason they'll be decimated in the General Election. The NHS has faults, as every huge department does, but it's definitely better than being profit driven, for people who care nothing for your life. Your suggestion that the US Healthcare system is awful is simply not correct. I work two months a year there and have roles in three different companies. Our corporate responsibilities are taken very seriously and we provide good levels of insurance to our employees. One had a heart attack in October 2012 and had the quadruple bypass straight from A&E. His care and ongoing rehabilitation has been first class. My own personal experience was also first class. That said, this is not about choosing an American system or keeping the NHS untouched. The story is about modernising the NHS and how this can be achieved." 'Modernising' the NHS?? The fact that the United States doesn't have universal health care is ridiculous in 2014. The fact Britain did in 1948 speaks volumes. | |||
| |||
"Reading this thread, one could be forgiven that there are only two healthcare options in the world. The American system or the NHS. This is not the case. The NHS is not fit for purpose and needs a ground up overhaul into something fit for the modern world. The only people who won't accept that as fact are in denial about our population demographics. You can't keep funding a health care system designed around human demographics that existed 70 years ago. Society, life expectancy and the cost of care have changed beyond recognition. I did suggest the Singaporean model "Quick read up and it suggests that all citizens pay into a specific health related pot and the size of the pot and the salary of the individual will depend on the cost of the healthcare and the amount of subsidy available? Doubt that this would satisfy those who demand that the NHS should be free at the point of delivery. | |||
"The US system is generally awful, as the health providers screw as many tests to be done, often totally not needed, in order to claim from the insurance. It doesn't always follow that more testing is better, if it is not needed, and is just a cash cow for health providers. People die in the USA much younger than here, partially due to their poor healthcare service that doesn't cover everything that is needed. Money counters at the private insurance companies are the people who decide whether you get treatment, live or die. The individual has no say in it. Many people also get coverage via their employers, so it's part funded via work. When you leave work, or lose your job, you no longer have health care insurance. Want a system like that? Farage spoke out in favour of a US type system, and many of the Conservative MPs have stakes in private health companies that are pressuring government to let them take over services. Shirley Williams - LibDem, was forceful in pushing through the laws that have helped speed up privatisation, which is one reason they'll be decimated in the General Election. The NHS has faults, as every huge department does, but it's definitely better than being profit driven, for people who care nothing for your life. Your suggestion that the US Healthcare system is awful is simply not correct. I work two months a year there and have roles in three different companies. Our corporate responsibilities are taken very seriously and we provide good levels of insurance to our employees. One had a heart attack in October 2012 and had the quadruple bypass straight from A&E. His care and ongoing rehabilitation has been first class. My own personal experience was also first class. That said, this is not about choosing an American system or keeping the NHS untouched. The story is about modernising the NHS and how this can be achieved." The privatisation option of our health service is likely to be heavily influenced by the American model, as well as with involvement of American providers, so it is relevant imo. The US system may be good for many things, many hospital services are excellent - my family have lived and died via them. But it's been heavily criticised, pertinently imo, by outside agencies, within and outside of the US, due to its exclusions, wastefulness: even in a private system it exists - and it is very tough for people who move employers, as coverage stops and starts and exclusions may stack up. Many there are surprised about what becomes excluded, when they need the treatment, after paying for many years for coverage. There was a recent summary that concluded: ''The U.S. ranks worst among 11 wealthy nations in terms of “efficiency, equity and outcomes" despite having the world's most expensive health care system'', as covered in Time magazine http://time.com/2888403/u-s-health-care-ranked-worst-in-the-developed-world/ Whatever is needed in the UK, I certainly believe it's not some emulation of any US driven system. | |||
"Reading this thread, one could be forgiven that there are only two healthcare options in the world. The American system or the NHS. This is not the case. The NHS is not fit for purpose and needs a ground up overhaul into something fit for the modern world. The only people who won't accept that as fact are in denial about our population demographics. You can't keep funding a health care system designed around human demographics that existed 70 years ago. Society, life expectancy and the cost of care have changed beyond recognition. I did suggest the Singaporean model
Quick read up and it suggests that all citizens pay into a specific health related pot and the size of the pot and the salary of the individual will depend on the cost of the healthcare and the amount of subsidy available?
Doubt that this would satisfy those who demand that the NHS should be free at the point of delivery."I see no reason why not. Education is free for all; why shouldn't health care be? | |||
"The US system is generally awful, as the health providers screw as many tests to be done, often totally not needed, in order to claim from the insurance. It doesn't always follow that more testing is better, if it is not needed, and is just a cash cow for health providers. People die in the USA much younger than here, partially due to their poor healthcare service that doesn't cover everything that is needed. Money counters at the private insurance companies are the people who decide whether you get treatment, live or die. The individual has no say in it. Many people also get coverage via their employers, so it's part funded via work. When you leave work, or lose your job, you no longer have health care insurance. Want a system like that? Farage spoke out in favour of a US type system, and many of the Conservative MPs have stakes in private health companies that are pressuring government to let them take over services. Shirley Williams - LibDem, was forceful in pushing through the laws that have helped speed up privatisation, which is one reason they'll be decimated in the General Election. The NHS has faults, as every huge department does, but it's definitely better than being profit driven, for people who care nothing for your life. Your suggestion that the US Healthcare system is awful is simply not correct. I work two months a year there and have roles in three different companies. Our corporate responsibilities are taken very seriously and we provide good levels of insurance to our employees. One had a heart attack in October 2012 and had the quadruple bypass straight from A&E. His care and ongoing rehabilitation has been first class. My own personal experience was also first class. That said, this is not about choosing an American system or keeping the NHS untouched. The story is about modernising the NHS and how this can be achieved. 'Modernising' the NHS?? The fact that the United States doesn't have universal health care is ridiculous in 2014. The fact Britain did in 1948 speaks volumes. " There is a philosophical difference in attitude across the pond. Most Americans accept that it is your responsibility to look after yourself and your family. Fundamentally here in the UK, we expect the state to ultimately look after us. The intervening 70 years has highlighted the errors of both points of view. The ordinary American has found the cost of healthcare to be beyond their means, even with private insurance. The UK has discovered that this same cost is evolving into an unsustainable funding gap that is incompatible with how the NHS is currently funded. There is an answer and it is probably somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. | |||
"Reading this thread, one could be forgiven that there are only two healthcare options in the world. The American system or the NHS. This is not the case. The NHS is not fit for purpose and needs a ground up overhaul into something fit for the modern world. The only people who won't accept that as fact are in denial about our population demographics. You can't keep funding a health care system designed around human demographics that existed 70 years ago. Society, life expectancy and the cost of care have changed beyond recognition. I did suggest the Singaporean model
Quick read up and it suggests that all citizens pay into a specific health related pot and the size of the pot and the salary of the individual will depend on the cost of the healthcare and the amount of subsidy available?
Doubt that this would satisfy those who demand that the NHS should be free at the point of delivery.
I see no reason why not. Education is free for all; why shouldn't health care be?"Are you reading the thread or just posting an opinion on random posts? | |||
"Reading this thread, one could be forgiven that there are only two healthcare options in the world. The American system or the NHS. This is not the case. The NHS is not fit for purpose and needs a ground up overhaul into something fit for the modern world. The only people who won't accept that as fact are in denial about our population demographics. You can't keep funding a health care system designed around human demographics that existed 70 years ago. Society, life expectancy and the cost of care have changed beyond recognition. I did suggest the Singaporean model "Difference being of course that Singapore is a tiny city-state, much smaller than the UK; albeit with a bigger population per square kilometre. | |||
"Reading this thread, one could be forgiven that there are only two healthcare options in the world. The American system or the NHS. This is not the case. The NHS is not fit for purpose and needs a ground up overhaul into something fit for the modern world. The only people who won't accept that as fact are in denial about our population demographics. You can't keep funding a health care system designed around human demographics that existed 70 years ago. Society, life expectancy and the cost of care have changed beyond recognition. I did suggest the Singaporean model
Quick read up and it suggests that all citizens pay into a specific health related pot and the size of the pot and the salary of the individual will depend on the cost of the healthcare and the amount of subsidy available?
Doubt that this would satisfy those who demand that the NHS should be free at the point of delivery.
I see no reason why not. Education is free for all; why shouldn't health care be?
Are you reading the thread or just posting an opinion on random posts?"That was not a rhetorical question. | |||
" There is an answer and it is probably somewhere in the middle of these two extremes." I don't think the answer is close to the US system, as it's so expensive, earning huge amounts of profit, as you've probably picked up from my posts. People also live shorter lives there, in part due to the health service. Our system is ranked at the top of developed nations, with Switzerland second, this year. That is impressive for a system that some people seem to think needs massive change. If our social support type services, which haven't been linked in previous years to the NHS, were better coordinated, as they do impact on health care, then it would help to take some strain off it, as well as help patients from the point where they are discharged. This follow on care is needed, so that rehabilitation is more effective, where presently there is little rehab for many important health care difficulties, such as neurological issues. As no 1 in the developed world, I think it's reasonable to assume that we probably should have a system that's close to our own. Spending £billions on the reorganisation since this government came to power hasn't yielded good reaults for patients, and was a mistake. | |||
"Reading this thread, one could be forgiven that there are only two healthcare options in the world. The American system or the NHS. This is not the case. The NHS is not fit for purpose and needs a ground up overhaul into something fit for the modern world. The only people who won't accept that as fact are in denial about our population demographics. You can't keep funding a health care system designed around human demographics that existed 70 years ago. Society, life expectancy and the cost of care have changed beyond recognition. I did suggest the Singaporean model
Difference being of course that Singapore is a tiny city-state, much smaller than the UK; albeit with a bigger population per square kilometre."I mentioned that also - I also suggested that things might be more manageable if power was decentralised. Singapore stands out as it's considered to have one of the best health care systems in the world. I'm not sure if there are any government subsidies. The american insurance model concerns me because you're paying in - even when you're not using it - and critically you're forced to by insurance from within your own state's borders which minimises competition and raises costs. Ultimately it's a case of political philosophy - proponents of the free market argue that neither education nor healthcare are human rights and as such it is not the state's responsibility. The opposing argument feels that some people are born with advantages over others (these advantages aren't always earned and are sometimes the result of generations old plundering) and this imbalance ought to be dealt with by minimising social inequality and sharing resources. There's an answer in the middle somewhere - I hope! | |||
| |||
" Ultimately it's a case of political philosophy - proponents of the free market argue that neither education nor healthcare are human rights and as such it is not the state's responsibility. " Well; what was perhaps unique in the Western World is that the United States never had a socialist (or social-democratic) party that started up to represent the interests of the Working classes, unlike in the UK (old Labour), Germany (Social Democrats), Norway (Social-Democrats), etc. etc. Which is why the U.S. never introduced 'socialist' ideas like the N.H.S., whereas in the UK, like in other western European democracies, we did. There is also the concept of the 'post war consensus' that all major political parties adhere to-that is, there are certain things-like the NHS and unemployment benefit-that should not be scrapped (one of the first things you learn about studying politics at university. Ultimately though; I don't think political considerations should come into it. This is an emotional response to something that should be considered in rational and logical terms (albeit tempered by compassion) The state can afford to give free health care to all, therefore it should. | |||
"The US system is generally awful, as the health providers screw as many tests to be done, often totally not needed, in order to claim from the insurance. It doesn't always follow that more testing is better, if it is not needed, and is just a cash cow for health providers. People die in the USA much younger than here, partially due to their poor healthcare service that doesn't cover everything that is needed. Money counters at the private insurance companies are the people who decide whether you get treatment, live or die. The individual has no say in it. Many people also get coverage via their employers, so it's part funded via work. When you leave work, or lose your job, you no longer have health care insurance. Want a system like that? Farage spoke out in favour of a US type system, and many of the Conservative MPs have stakes in private health companies that are pressuring government to let them take over services. Shirley Williams - LibDem, was forceful in pushing through the laws that have helped speed up privatisation, which is one reason they'll be decimated in the General Election. The NHS has faults, as every huge department does, but it's definitely better than being profit driven, for people who care nothing for your life. Your suggestion that the US Healthcare system is awful is simply not correct. I work two months a year there and have roles in three different companies. Our corporate responsibilities are taken very seriously and we provide good levels of insurance to our employees. One had a heart attack in October 2012 and had the quadruple bypass straight from A&E. His care and ongoing rehabilitation has been first class. My own personal experience was also first class. That said, this is not about choosing an American system or keeping the NHS untouched. The story is about modernising the NHS and how this can be achieved. 'Modernising' the NHS?? The fact that the United States doesn't have universal health care is ridiculous in 2014. The fact Britain did in 1948 speaks volumes. There is a philosophical difference in attitude across the pond. Most Americans accept that it is your responsibility to look after yourself and your family. Fundamentally here in the UK, we expect the state to ultimately look after us. The intervening 70 years has highlighted the errors of both points of view. The ordinary American has found the cost of healthcare to be beyond their means, even with private insurance. The UK has discovered that this same cost is evolving into an unsustainable funding gap that is incompatible with how the NHS is currently funded. There is an answer and it is probably somewhere in the middle of these two extremes." Why do Americans stop at health, why not include police, fire service and education? Because they realise that collectively getting together and paying for services through taxation provides a more efficient and cost effective service. The healthcare lobby wields too much power in the US for their to be any meaningful change. | |||
" Ultimately it's a case of political philosophy - proponents of the free market argue that neither education nor healthcare are human rights and as such it is not the state's responsibility. Well; what was perhaps unique in the Western World is that the United States never had a socialist (or social-democratic) party that started up to represent the interests of the Working classes, unlike in the UK (old Labour), Germany (Social Democrats), Norway (Social-Democrats), etc. etc. Which is why the U.S. never introduced 'socialist' ideas like the N.H.S., whereas in the UK, like in other western European democracies, we did. There is also the concept of the 'post war consensus' that all major political parties adhere to-that is, there are certain things-like the NHS and unemployment benefit-that should not be scrapped (one of the first things you learn about studying politics at university. Ultimately though; I don't think political considerations should come into it. This is an emotional response to something that should be considered in rational and logical terms (albeit tempered by compassion) The state can afford to give free health care to all, therefore it should." One's political persuasion should be rational and logical should it not? Can the state actually afford to give free health care to all? That state generates money via taxation. The free market argument is that this is coercion. Does the government have the right to take away a person's earnings and redistribute them? I feel it comes down to the society one wishes to live in - one where we look after our own interests - or we look after each others. | |||
"Ever wondered why all those people are living longer??... Yeah universal healthcare ..
Again you make highly selective points and twist the meaning.
If what you say were correct - then it would only be the UK where people are living longer. It is a worldwide phenomina because the world is better at curing deisease and preventing premature death - but it is expensive.
The NHS is a bloated behemoth that needs dismantling and rebuilding under a different model.
I had a TIA in Florida in 2013. Within 18 hours they had done every test and identified the likely cause. They said that if I could stay another 12 hours they would fix the heart defect and I would be on my way. I didn't do it and returned to the UK and went to my GP. I had all the same tests done in the UK over a 14 month period and then waited another 4 months to have the operation. In that time I have been asked for follow up appointments from my GP Nurse, the local cardiology department, the secretary of the regional cardiology department and the cardiology department at Wythenshawe where the operation was conducted. Each had their own reason and agenda for requesting me to see them but it was a massive overlap of resources..
Now I couldn't agree with you more on all those last points....
But that just comes down to having better management with maybe some easier way to fire people who are grossly incompetent, management included.
What I disagree with is this myth that the younger generation shouldn't pay for their parents and grandparents because there'd prefer to put an extension on the kitchen, it's just another symptom of a me me me society which drags down our species and holds progress back.
i fully agree!
Unlike the baby boomers who have pissed all the money up the wall with unfunded pensions, massive government debt and huge house price rises, we have left our kids and grandkids with:
1 trillion pound debt that costs more to service each year in interest than we spend on our army
A low wage economy
Mortgages at 10x average income
Education fees that will take 30 years to pay off or maybe never
If they are lucky they will have a pension that is based on contributions rather than final salary.
If I was young today I would be pretty fucked off at the legacy of debt we have left them because we wanted low taxes, expensive houses and no will to pay the real price for anything
.
I wish you applied that theory of leaving your kids something to your own life....
Quite a few people bang on about leaving their children and grandchildren a debt legacy, but I've noticed those same people are quite happy to use up genuine non renewable resources like, copper and tin and silver and more importantly oil... Yeah I don't see you lot cycling everywhere or cancelling that foreign holiday or stopping that trip to Florida for tests or still buying strawberries in December.
You bunch of fucking hypocrites you slag someone like brand of for hypocrisy, then drive around in cars all day, fly to foreign places to burn your skin for a few months all the time consuming massive amounts of precarious resources that will never last for your CHILDREN.
but then have the audacity to say making poor people well will ruin the lives of future generations...
Ffs
That is an outrageous statement to make calling people on here hypocrites when you don't even know us.
As for the running out of resources that will never happen. All that happens is they become more expensive and alternative materials are found or previously expensive extraction methods become economically viable. In the case if materials like copper how much ends up in landfill? Fuck all, because it is so expensive it is recycled very efficiently
As for flying, aircraft engines are becomming more efficient. The fact that we could replace a substantial part of our power generation with nuclear which is safer than coal, with annual deaths in the industry closer to single figures than the 1000s per annum from coal industry related deaths. One day we might even have fusion that would provide unlimited clean energy.
There are lots of good reasons for using less resources such as protecting our environment from pollution. But not going on holiday is a stupid suggestion, cutting down on eating meat and reducing methane production from cows is more effective since it is 20x greater at trapping heat than CO2. ". I make that assumption from statements (not necessarily yours). Outrageous to make statements without knowing the person mmm think the brand/farage thread. Oil is finite Copper is finite Silver is finite. Your holiday uses lots of oil (jet fuel) (silver in the engines) none of which is recyclable. Nuclear safer than coal!! Mmmm ask 100 million Japanese people if they agree on that fact. Fusion oh yes... We've got two experimental plants in the entire fucking world neither of which has figured out how to do it, let alone how to apply it if they do to provide useful energy... And then there's the likely chance if they figured it out tomorrow you've got 30 years in planning and building!. If you genuinely think that leaving kids fictional debt, with paper money which is in itself just a concept of humans, like Fridays or weekends or money there just constructs of human imagination. However copper is a scientific factual element, there is only so much and we've used nearly 70% of the world's resources. The fact of the matter is that a generation enjoyed extremely cheap abundant energy and you squandered it on useless fucking holidays and stupidly big cars and eating food out of season and all the other shite that really was a waste. The one thing I can guarantee you regardless of your politics or beliefs is that the next generation and the one after that will not be worried about some paper fucking debt but the lack of resources and energy squandered on stupid shite and the God awful environment youve betrothed to them. I won't argue with someone who states.... "As for running out of resources that will never happen" You do realise we live on a finite planet don't you!! | |||
| |||
"Came in saw this was getting political so decided to back out of the room.. I will say this though. The NHS would be in a much better financial pisition, if the peoplw running the trusts had some commercial business sense (i am not talking about thw medical side here). Millions of pounds are squandered by NHS trusts on unnecessary contracts. An example is the purchasing of drugs, and we are talking about the day to day stuff like paracetemol.. Our NHS trust is buying bog standard everyday paracetemol at hugely inflated prices as they are tied into a supply contract...what they are paying 3 quid for you can buy in sainsburys and tescos etc for 25p.... some moron with no commercial accumen signed that contract" Or there was a kick back of some kind elsewhere.....maybe? | |||
" Ultimately it's a case of political philosophy - proponents of the free market argue that neither education nor healthcare are human rights and as such it is not the state's responsibility. Well; what was perhaps unique in the Western World is that the United States never had a socialist (or social-democratic) party that started up to represent the interests of the Working classes, unlike in the UK (old Labour), Germany (Social Democrats), Norway (Social-Democrats), etc. etc. Which is why the U.S. never introduced 'socialist' ideas like the N.H.S., whereas in the UK, like in other western European democracies, we did. There is also the concept of the 'post war consensus' that all major political parties adhere to-that is, there are certain things-like the NHS and unemployment benefit-that should not be scrapped (one of the first things you learn about studying politics at university. Ultimately though; I don't think political considerations should come into it. This is an emotional response to something that should be considered in rational and logical terms (albeit tempered by compassion) The state can afford to give free health care to all, therefore it should. One's political persuasion should be rational and logical should it not? Can the state actually afford to give free health care to all? That state generates money via taxation. The free market argument is that this is coercion. Does the government have the right to take away a person's earnings and redistribute them? I feel it comes down to the society one wishes to live in - one where we look after our own interests - or we look after each others." One's political beliefs *should* be rational and logical, but they all too often are not. But yes, fundamentally you have the right wing, that says people should be on the one hand be taxed less, but have the state do less for you. On the other, you have the left wing, that thinks you should be taxed more, but have the state do more for you in return. As I said before, politics and emotion should not come into this. Rationality and logic should. If we can land men on the moon and send probes outside our solar system, I find it hard to believe we cannot stop people from dying just because they cannot foot a bill. | |||
"Ever wondered why all those people are living longer??... Yeah universal healthcare ..
Again you make highly selective points and twist the meaning.
If what you say were correct - then it would only be the UK where people are living longer. It is a worldwide phenomina because the world is better at curing deisease and preventing premature death - but it is expensive.
The NHS is a bloated behemoth that needs dismantling and rebuilding under a different model.
I had a TIA in Florida in 2013. Within 18 hours they had done every test and identified the likely cause. They said that if I could stay another 12 hours they would fix the heart defect and I would be on my way. I didn't do it and returned to the UK and went to my GP. I had all the same tests done in the UK over a 14 month period and then waited another 4 months to have the operation. In that time I have been asked for follow up appointments from my GP Nurse, the local cardiology department, the secretary of the regional cardiology department and the cardiology department at Wythenshawe where the operation was conducted. Each had their own reason and agenda for requesting me to see them but it was a massive overlap of resources..
Now I couldn't agree with you more on all those last points....
But that just comes down to having better management with maybe some easier way to fire people who are grossly incompetent, management included.
What I disagree with is this myth that the younger generation shouldn't pay for their parents and grandparents because there'd prefer to put an extension on the kitchen, it's just another symptom of a me me me society which drags down our species and holds progress back.
i fully agree!
Unlike the baby boomers who have pissed all the money up the wall with unfunded pensions, massive government debt and huge house price rises, we have left our kids and grandkids with:
1 trillion pound debt that costs more to service each year in interest than we spend on our army
A low wage economy
Mortgages at 10x average income
Education fees that will take 30 years to pay off or maybe never
If they are lucky they will have a pension that is based on contributions rather than final salary.
If I was young today I would be pretty fucked off at the legacy of debt we have left them because we wanted low taxes, expensive houses and no will to pay the real price for anything
.
I wish you applied that theory of leaving your kids something to your own life....
Quite a few people bang on about leaving their children and grandchildren a debt legacy, but I've noticed those same people are quite happy to use up genuine non renewable resources like, copper and tin and silver and more importantly oil... Yeah I don't see you lot cycling everywhere or cancelling that foreign holiday or stopping that trip to Florida for tests or still buying strawberries in December.
You bunch of fucking hypocrites you slag someone like brand of for hypocrisy, then drive around in cars all day, fly to foreign places to burn your skin for a few months all the time consuming massive amounts of precarious resources that will never last for your CHILDREN.
but then have the audacity to say making poor people well will ruin the lives of future generations...
Ffs
That is an outrageous statement to make calling people on here hypocrites when you don't even know us.
As for the running out of resources that will never happen. All that happens is they become more expensive and alternative materials are found or previously expensive extraction methods become economically viable. In the case if materials like copper how much ends up in landfill? Fuck all, because it is so expensive it is recycled very efficiently
As for flying, aircraft engines are becomming more efficient. The fact that we could replace a substantial part of our power generation with nuclear which is safer than coal, with annual deaths in the industry closer to single figures than the 1000s per annum from coal industry related deaths. One day we might even have fusion that would provide unlimited clean energy.
There are lots of good reasons for using less resources such as protecting our environment from pollution. But not going on holiday is a stupid suggestion, cutting down on eating meat and reducing methane production from cows is more effective since it is 20x greater at trapping heat than CO2. .
I make that assumption from statements (not necessarily yours).
Outrageous to make statements without knowing the person mmm think the brand/farage thread.
Oil is finite
Copper is finite
Silver is finite.
Your holiday uses lots of oil (jet fuel) (silver in the engines) none of which is recyclable.
Nuclear safer than coal!! Mmmm ask 100 million Japanese people if they agree on that fact.
Fusion oh yes... We've got two experimental plants in the entire fucking world neither of which has figured out how to do it, let alone how to apply it if they do to provide useful energy... And then there's the likely chance if they figured it out tomorrow you've got 30 years in planning and building!.
If you genuinely think that leaving kids fictional debt, with paper money which is in itself just a concept of humans, like Fridays or weekends or money there just constructs of human imagination.
However copper is a scientific factual element, there is only so much and we've used nearly 70% of the world's resources.
The fact of the matter is that a generation enjoyed extremely cheap abundant energy and you squandered it on useless fucking holidays and stupidly big cars and eating food out of season and all the other shite that really was a waste.
The one thing I can guarantee you regardless of your politics or beliefs is that the next generation and the one after that will not be worried about some paper fucking debt but the lack of resources and energy squandered on stupid shite and the God awful environment youve betrothed to them.
I won't argue with someone who states.... "As for running out of resources that will never happen"
You do realise we live on a finite planet don't you!!"100 million Japanese? How many have actually died from the nuclear waste? 10, 20 maybe 100? You know 10,000 - 20,000 people died in Fukuyama when the Tsunami hit. I know what the word finite means, start counting grains of sand on a beach, they are finite and see how long it takes you? Or the stars in the universe? 70% of copper may have been extracted but it has not been destroyed, it is available for recycling. It will get to the point that all copper used will be recycled as it will be cheaper than extraction. Oil is important for things like lubrication of machinery. Aircraft can fly using aviation biofuel and ethanol these will present new engineering challenges but just like he removal of lead from petrol, and solder in the electronics industry along with CFCs in fridges they will be overcome. I have no wish to live in your pre-industrial, agrarian society with no modern medicines and all arguments are frequently interspersed with expletives. You want to live in a low carbon footprint mud hut, and wear sackcloth, go ahead but let the rest of us get on with finding solutions to today's problems not reinventing yesterday's. | |||
" Ultimately it's a case of political philosophy - proponents of the free market argue that neither education nor healthcare are human rights and as such it is not the state's responsibility. Well; what was perhaps unique in the Western World is that the United States never had a socialist (or social-democratic) party that started up to represent the interests of the Working classes, unlike in the UK (old Labour), Germany (Social Democrats), Norway (Social-Democrats), etc. etc. Which is why the U.S. never introduced 'socialist' ideas like the N.H.S., whereas in the UK, like in other western European democracies, we did. There is also the concept of the 'post war consensus' that all major political parties adhere to-that is, there are certain things-like the NHS and unemployment benefit-that should not be scrapped (one of the first things you learn about studying politics at university. Ultimately though; I don't think political considerations should come into it. This is an emotional response to something that should be considered in rational and logical terms (albeit tempered by compassion) The state can afford to give free health care to all, therefore it should. One's political persuasion should be rational and logical should it not? Can the state actually afford to give free health care to all? That state generates money via taxation. The free market argument is that this is coercion. Does the government have the right to take away a person's earnings and redistribute them? I feel it comes down to the society one wishes to live in - one where we look after our own interests - or we look after each others. One's political beliefs *should* be rational and logical, but they all too often are not. But yes, fundamentally you have the right wing, that says people should be on the one hand be taxed less, but have the state do less for you. On the other, you have the left wing, that thinks you should be taxed more, but have the state do more for you in return. As I said before, politics and emotion should not come into this. Rationality and logic should. If we can land men on the moon and send probes outside our solar system, I find it hard to believe we cannot stop people from dying just because they cannot foot a bill." . Couldn't agree more. The trouble is the entire system and way of life, is not logically based, so we're constantly at odds on how best to go forward. The one thing I've come to believe in the last 20 years of being a green party member is that nothing is going to change until it's forced upon us by either sheer dictatorship (not my preferred choice) or the utter collapse of the system which is not to far away from all reasoning (an even worse choice). Outcome we're all fucked sooner or later. | |||
| |||
"Ever wondered why all those people are living longer??... Yeah universal healthcare ..
Again you make highly selective points and twist the meaning.
If what you say were correct - then it would only be the UK where people are living longer. It is a worldwide phenomina because the world is better at curing deisease and preventing premature death - but it is expensive.
The NHS is a bloated behemoth that needs dismantling and rebuilding under a different model.
I had a TIA in Florida in 2013. Within 18 hours they had done every test and identified the likely cause. They said that if I could stay another 12 hours they would fix the heart defect and I would be on my way. I didn't do it and returned to the UK and went to my GP. I had all the same tests done in the UK over a 14 month period and then waited another 4 months to have the operation. In that time I have been asked for follow up appointments from my GP Nurse, the local cardiology department, the secretary of the regional cardiology department and the cardiology department at Wythenshawe where the operation was conducted. Each had their own reason and agenda for requesting me to see them but it was a massive overlap of resources..
Now I couldn't agree with you more on all those last points....
But that just comes down to having better management with maybe some easier way to fire people who are grossly incompetent, management included.
What I disagree with is this myth that the younger generation shouldn't pay for their parents and grandparents because there'd prefer to put an extension on the kitchen, it's just another symptom of a me me me society which drags down our species and holds progress back.
i fully agree!
Unlike the baby boomers who have pissed all the money up the wall with unfunded pensions, massive government debt and huge house price rises, we have left our kids and grandkids with:
1 trillion pound debt that costs more to service each year in interest than we spend on our army
A low wage economy
Mortgages at 10x average income
Education fees that will take 30 years to pay off or maybe never
If they are lucky they will have a pension that is based on contributions rather than final salary.
If I was young today I would be pretty fucked off at the legacy of debt we have left them because we wanted low taxes, expensive houses and no will to pay the real price for anything
.
I wish you applied that theory of leaving your kids something to your own life....
Quite a few people bang on about leaving their children and grandchildren a debt legacy, but I've noticed those same people are quite happy to use up genuine non renewable resources like, copper and tin and silver and more importantly oil... Yeah I don't see you lot cycling everywhere or cancelling that foreign holiday or stopping that trip to Florida for tests or still buying strawberries in December.
You bunch of fucking hypocrites you slag someone like brand of for hypocrisy, then drive around in cars all day, fly to foreign places to burn your skin for a few months all the time consuming massive amounts of precarious resources that will never last for your CHILDREN.
but then have the audacity to say making poor people well will ruin the lives of future generations...
Ffs
That is an outrageous statement to make calling people on here hypocrites when you don't even know us.
As for the running out of resources that will never happen. All that happens is they become more expensive and alternative materials are found or previously expensive extraction methods become economically viable. In the case if materials like copper how much ends up in landfill? Fuck all, because it is so expensive it is recycled very efficiently
As for flying, aircraft engines are becomming more efficient. The fact that we could replace a substantial part of our power generation with nuclear which is safer than coal, with annual deaths in the industry closer to single figures than the 1000s per annum from coal industry related deaths. One day we might even have fusion that would provide unlimited clean energy.
There are lots of good reasons for using less resources such as protecting our environment from pollution. But not going on holiday is a stupid suggestion, cutting down on eating meat and reducing methane production from cows is more effective since it is 20x greater at trapping heat than CO2. .
I make that assumption from statements (not necessarily yours).
Outrageous to make statements without knowing the person mmm think the brand/farage thread.
Oil is finite
Copper is finite
Silver is finite.
Your holiday uses lots of oil (jet fuel) (silver in the engines) none of which is recyclable.
Nuclear safer than coal!! Mmmm ask 100 million Japanese people if they agree on that fact.
Fusion oh yes... We've got two experimental plants in the entire fucking world neither of which has figured out how to do it, let alone how to apply it if they do to provide useful energy... And then there's the likely chance if they figured it out tomorrow you've got 30 years in planning and building!.
If you genuinely think that leaving kids fictional debt, with paper money which is in itself just a concept of humans, like Fridays or weekends or money there just constructs of human imagination.
However copper is a scientific factual element, there is only so much and we've used nearly 70% of the world's resources.
The fact of the matter is that a generation enjoyed extremely cheap abundant energy and you squandered it on useless fucking holidays and stupidly big cars and eating food out of season and all the other shite that really was a waste.
The one thing I can guarantee you regardless of your politics or beliefs is that the next generation and the one after that will not be worried about some paper fucking debt but the lack of resources and energy squandered on stupid shite and the God awful environment youve betrothed to them.
I won't argue with someone who states.... "As for running out of resources that will never happen"
You do realise we live on a finite planet don't you!!
100 million Japanese? How many have actually died from the nuclear waste? 10, 20 maybe 100? You know 10,000 - 20,000 people died in Fukuyama when the Tsunami hit.
I know what the word finite means, start counting grains of sand on a beach, they are finite and see how long it takes you? Or the stars in the universe?
70% of copper may have been extracted but it has not been destroyed, it is available for recycling. It will get to the point that all copper used will be recycled as it will be cheaper than extraction.
Oil is important for things like lubrication of machinery. Aircraft can fly using aviation biofuel and ethanol these will present new engineering challenges but just like he removal of lead from petrol, and solder in the electronics industry along with CFCs in fridges they will be overcome.
I have no wish to live in your pre-industrial, agrarian society with no modern medicines and all arguments are frequently interspersed with expletives. You want to live in a low carbon footprint mud hut, and wear sackcloth, go ahead but let the rest of us get on with finding solutions to today's problems not reinventing yesterday's. ".Oil is used for lubricating!!!. Fertiliser. Medicine. 90% of entire transport. Plastics. Clothing. Insecticides.... The average burger from McDonald's has more oil energy in it then calorific value,same with carrots and potatoes. Biofuels yeah good one apart from you have to grow them without that oil and that takes up more land for food that you need to eat!. One in six children in nearby villages in Fukushima have thyroid illnesses, these are the first illness's that show up from radioactive poisoning the others will come in 20 years! Just like they did with Chernobyl! Ps they didn't remove lead from petrol they used to add it to keep the valves lubricated. Honestly I'd rather not live a simple life either but until you figure a way out of the mess we've got ourselves into... And you better be quick as by all rational experts were either on Hubbard's plateau or really close to it. It will be forced upon us. | |||
| |||
"Ye don't know how lucky ye are in UK with NHS. By the time you get into hospital here from waiting lists they nearly need to dig you up and we pay for everything here." i bet they expect you to pay for the shovel too? | |||
"Really wish someone would explain why this year we were rated as having the best healthcare system in the world, yet it's 'not fit for purpose'?? We are the envy of the world but many here would love to throw that away? Bizarre. We spend less on healthcare than most western countries yet overall we achieve better results. There is much scope to increase healthcare spending in this country and still be spending less as a proportion of our GDP. IMO therein lies the answer." No one is suggesting otherwise. Unfortunately the anHS has a funding gap that is only going to get bigger every year. You can ignore this little issue until it becomes to big to ignore or you can plan to deal with it. Failure to plan the funding of the NHS is not an option. Therein lies the roots of this thread. Some believe that continuing to tax an ever decreasing percentage of people in gainful employment is the way to pay for the NHS. Others think that the tax burden on the decreasing percentage of working people would be too great. The irrefutable fact is that there is now and will be ongoing a funding gap because people are living longer and the cost of healthcare medicine and equipment is rising exponentially. It is ridiculous to make the argument about left wing or right wing - it is just about how the NHS is funded and what if any reorganisation is needed to reflect the change of social demographics over the last 70 years. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Ye don't know how lucky ye are in UK with NHS. By the time you get into hospital here from waiting lists they nearly need to dig you up and we pay for everything here. i bet they expect you to pay for the shovel too? "Or dig hole yourself before you pop clogs lol | |||
"Really wish someone would explain why this year we were rated as having the best healthcare system in the world, yet it's 'not fit for purpose'?? We are the envy of the world but many here would love to throw that away? Bizarre. We spend less on healthcare than most western countries yet overall we achieve better results. There is much scope to increase healthcare spending in this country and still be spending less as a proportion of our GDP. IMO therein lies the answer. No one is suggesting otherwise. Unfortunately the anHS has a funding gap that is only going to get bigger every year. You can ignore this little issue until it becomes to big to ignore or you can plan to deal with it. Failure to plan the funding of the NHS is not an option. Therein lies the roots of this thread. Some believe that continuing to tax an ever decreasing percentage of people in gainful employment is the way to pay for the NHS. Others think that the tax burden on the decreasing percentage of working people would be too great. The irrefutable fact is that there is now and will be ongoing a funding gap because people are living longer and the cost of healthcare medicine and equipment is rising exponentially. It is ridiculous to make the argument about left wing or right wing - it is just about how the NHS is funded and what if any reorganisation is needed to reflect the change of social demographics over the last 70 years." Then we should raise NI contributions for those who earn well. Any private insurance based system will only lead to increased costs to those who have ill health, above what they currently pay in NI. It would also mean that the more high ranking you are in your job the better insurance you will get (either from your employer or because you're richer and can afford more) and those of more limited means get less. I work in the NHS and I never want a system whereby I have to deny someone care because they've only got a basic insurance package. We work on an egalitarian basis, everyone gets the same whoever they are and whatever they earn. | |||
" I work in the NHS and I never want a system whereby I have to deny someone care because they've only got a basic insurance package. We work on an egalitarian basis, everyone gets the same whoever they are and whatever they earn." Do people get turned away in the US? How awful, if true | |||
" I work in the NHS and I never want a system whereby I have to deny someone care because they've only got a basic insurance package. We work on an egalitarian basis, everyone gets the same whoever they are and whatever they earn. Do people get turned away in the US? How awful, if true " No they dont | |||
"Really wish someone would explain why this year we were rated as having the best healthcare system in the world, yet it's 'not fit for purpose'?? We are the envy of the world but many here would love to throw that away? Bizarre. We spend less on healthcare than most western countries yet overall we achieve better results. There is much scope to increase healthcare spending in this country and still be spending less as a proportion of our GDP. IMO therein lies the answer. No one is suggesting otherwise. Unfortunately the anHS has a funding gap that is only going to get bigger every year. You can ignore this little issue until it becomes to big to ignore or you can plan to deal with it. Failure to plan the funding of the NHS is not an option. Therein lies the roots of this thread. Some believe that continuing to tax an ever decreasing percentage of people in gainful employment is the way to pay for the NHS. Others think that the tax burden on the decreasing percentage of working people would be too great. The irrefutable fact is that there is now and will be ongoing a funding gap because people are living longer and the cost of healthcare medicine and equipment is rising exponentially. It is ridiculous to make the argument about left wing or right wing - it is just about how the NHS is funded and what if any reorganisation is needed to reflect the change of social demographics over the last 70 years. Then we should raise NI contributions for those who earn well. Any private insurance based system will only lead to increased costs to those who have ill health, above what they currently pay in NI. It would also mean that the more high ranking you are in your job the better insurance you will get (either from your employer or because you're richer and can afford more) and those of more limited means get less. I work in the NHS and I never want a system whereby I have to deny someone care because they've only got a basic insurance package. We work on an egalitarian basis, everyone gets the same whoever they are and whatever they earn." So your answer is to make the high earners pay more NI? That may not be too popular amongst the high earners who already foot the vast proportion of the income tax bill anyway. I think that the NHS should be directly funded by those who pay NI and possibly other sources of tax revenue (cigarettes, alcohol and fast food spring to mind). That fund is a separate NHS fund that cannot be meddled with by the government but remains an autonomous institution. If this institution is accountable for its income and expenditure it needs to have its own finance arm who have the right to levy charges for missed appointments, charges for self inflicted A&E visits and charges to those not entitled to use the NHS. We all buy insurance for our cars and homes and we willingly accept an excess charge for when we claim. Why would it be objectionable for the NHS to charge say £200 for an A&E visit because of d*unkenness for example or because DIY chopped his pinky off whilst strumming a bush on stepladders? I am not saying that the NHS should be paid for by insurance but it should be in charge of its own funding and be able to make its own non political funding decisions. | |||
" I work in the NHS and I never want a system whereby I have to deny someone care because they've only got a basic insurance package. We work on an egalitarian basis, everyone gets the same whoever they are and whatever they earn. Do people get turned away in the US? How awful, if true No they dont" Hospitals are legally bound to provide emergency treatment so if you have a small tumour they won't treat it until it becomes a big tumour. Unless you can show you have the ability to pay. | |||
" I work in the NHS and I never want a system whereby I have to deny someone care because they've only got a basic insurance package. We work on an egalitarian basis, everyone gets the same whoever they are and whatever they earn. Do people get turned away in the US? How awful, if true No they dont" yes they very often are, the usa is plagued with private ambulances driving from hospital to hospital until they eventually find somewhere that hasn't already filled it's quota for pro bono emergency treatment. all too often the patient expires because nowhere can be found in time. alos the ambulance fees are chargeable. which is why the overwhelming majority of US citizens support "obama" care despite the protestations of the more hawkish minority. the single biggest cause of bankruptcy in america is the inability to pay for medical bills, a number just shy of 2 million per year, outstripping crdit card or even mortgage debt. Even outside of bankruptcy, about 56 million adults, more than 20 percent of the population between the ages of 19 and 64, will still struggle with health-care-related bills each year. | |||
"Reading this thread, one could be forgiven that there are only two healthcare options in the world. The American system or the NHS. This is not the case. The NHS is not fit for purpose and needs a ground up overhaul into something fit for the modern world. The only people who won't accept that as fact are in denial about our population demographics. You can't keep funding a health care system designed around human demographics that existed 70 years ago. Society, life expectancy and the cost of care have changed beyond recognition." I was thinking that as well. I would agree that the US system is far from perfect. But why does everyone always use it as the benchmark for private health care? It isn't the only one in the world. There are many country's that have a privatised health system that is far more efficient than the NHS. Here in Germany health care funding isn't really a political issue, everybody gets what they need in private hospitals, you can choose which one you want to use (or as is more common, take your doctor's recommendation) the standards of care are very high, and waiting lists just don't exist. The main difference is what the Germans pay for it. An employee pays 14% of salary which is matched by the employer, and that is ONLY for health. Unemployment, pension, Etc are extra and compulsory. The unemployed and people on benefit have their contributions paid for by the government so no-one misses out. Paying 10% NI to cover health, pension, and welfare just isn't enough, no matter whether it is administered by government or private company. If Britain wants top quality healthcare then you are going to have to pay for it. I personally would go for full privatisation. Not only would it make healthcare the priority, as opposed to the demi job club the NHS has become, it would also out health tourism which puts a massive (and growing) strain on what are very limited resources. | |||
"Who here, sees the nhs being privatised? Apparently medical tretments in the usa can be 3 times more expensive,than costs to the nhs. The private companies are here now on the fringes of the nhs. Are these american companies going to get to take over the whole nhs? Esp. With the north atlantic agreement knocking at the door. The NHS cannot continue under the current model. If someone dreamed up the current NHS model today it would be scrapped as being impossible to fund. People are living longer and curing preventing the diseases that once killed people is very expensive. Something has to change but I have yet to see or hear a politician brave enough to stand up and tell us what we really all should see as being obvious. My opinion is that we have to pick a future date - say Jan 01st 2016 and everyone who turns 18 after that date must have a basic form of medical insurance. Employers provide tax deductible health insurance and the state provides a small emergency welfare fund for those who fall between the gaps. The NHS cannot continue as it is because the % of non working people has already exceeded those in gainful employment. At the time the NHS was created 90% were working and supporting only 10% that were not. What utter diatribe your last paragraph is. Unemployment is no higher today than it was at the inception of the NHS following the Beveridge report in 1948. The problem the NHS has is that it is a victim of it's own success. In 1948 the NHS provided acute incidence healthcare, now it has ballooned into 'all things for all people' and we can now manage many conditions that were previously fatal such as diabetes, hiv and all sorts of others. The cost of this 'management' has also ballooned out of all proportion. Acute healthcare is eminently affordable, life improving and management of serious illness is not in the current funding formula. It's a simple fix - pay more national insurance and then it will become affordable. It isn't rocket science to fund the nhs properly, unfortunately tax raising is political suicide at present. You should try reading the words that were written as opposed to what you think might give you an opportunity to gave a go at someone. At no point were the unemployed mentioned. Look at the number of people in gainful employment as a percentage of the entire population. The model today is not how it was when the NHS was created. Just after WW2 you were expected to die within a couple of years of retiring - if you were lucky enough to still be alive at retirement age." Old age is the outcome of better healthcare and management of conditions. These are the intended outcome and output of the NHS. The more successful it is the more outputs outcomes they will have to support. It is a wicked issue with only a small number of solutions - pay more tax (one option is to link NI and healthcare taxation directly to a nationally average life expectancy) or ration healthcare so that 'enough' people don't make it, or remove 'retirement' I know which option i'd prefer! Regardless of the burgeoning management costs which account for probably £100m of waste nationally, the gap is into the billions and widening each year. Universal healthcare has been so successful that it is actually strangling itself. | |||
| |||
"Reading this thread, one could be forgiven that there are only two healthcare options in the world. The American system or the NHS. This is not the case. The NHS is not fit for purpose and needs a ground up overhaul into something fit for the modern world. The only people who won't accept that as fact are in denial about our population demographics. You can't keep funding a health care system designed around human demographics that existed 70 years ago. Society, life expectancy and the cost of care have changed beyond recognition. I was thinking that as well. I would agree that the US system is far from perfect. But why does everyone always use it as the benchmark for private health care? It isn't the only one in the world. There are many country's that have a privatised health system that is far more efficient than the NHS. Here in Germany health care funding isn't really a political issue, everybody gets what they need in private hospitals, you can choose which one you want to use (or as is more common, take your doctor's recommendation) the standards of care are very high, and waiting lists just don't exist. The main difference is what the Germans pay for it. An employee pays 14% of salary which is matched by the employer, and that is ONLY for health. Unemployment, pension, Etc are extra and compulsory. The unemployed and people on benefit have their contributions paid for by the government so no-one misses out. Paying 10% NI to cover health, pension, and welfare just isn't enough, no matter whether it is administered by government or private company. If Britain wants top quality healthcare then you are going to have to pay for it. I personally would go for full privatisation. Not only would it make healthcare the priority, as opposed to the demi job club the NHS has become, it would also out health tourism which puts a massive (and growing) strain on what are very limited resources. " it would be wonderful if it wasn't a political issue here either but it is. anyway, i'm curious and correct me if i'm wrong here but from what i remember of my time in berlin, people are prepared to and do pay quite alot more in compulsary taxes in germany, such as pension tax, unemployment ins, health ins,disability ins,solidarity tax etc. now i seem to remember that for a gross wage of the equivalent of £25,000 (aprox 37k in euros) as a single bloke with no kids i would be paying tax of slightly over £8,500 (aprox 11,000 euros). where as in the uk on a £25,000 averagish wage i expect to pay (between income tax and NI) £5000. are these figures in the ball park? if they are, i for one wouldn't mind paying this kind of amount from my earningsas they do in germany for the level of service that they get. it's such a shame that in the uk in the early 80's people believed that a cut in taxes wouldn't effect services. if i was still paying income tax of 30% as i was when i left school i somehow think we wouldn't be having to put up with this arguement today. trouble is those who believed the pernicious idea of "there is no such thing as society" are loath to go back to a time when we could afford far better services by paying more for it. | |||
"Reading this thread, one could be forgiven that there are only two healthcare options in the world. The American system or the NHS. This is not the case. The NHS is not fit for purpose and needs a ground up overhaul into something fit for the modern world. The only people who won't accept that as fact are in denial about our population demographics. You can't keep funding a health care system designed around human demographics that existed 70 years ago. Society, life expectancy and the cost of care have changed beyond recognition. I was thinking that as well. I would agree that the US system is far from perfect. But why does everyone always use it as the benchmark for private health care? It isn't the only one in the world. There are many country's that have a privatised health system that is far more efficient than the NHS. Here in Germany health care funding isn't really a political issue, everybody gets what they need in private hospitals, you can choose which one you want to use (or as is more common, take your doctor's recommendation) the standards of care are very high, and waiting lists just don't exist. The main difference is what the Germans pay for it. An employee pays 14% of salary which is matched by the employer, and that is ONLY for health. Unemployment, pension, Etc are extra and compulsory. The unemployed and people on benefit have their contributions paid for by the government so no-one misses out. Paying 10% NI to cover health, pension, and welfare just isn't enough, no matter whether it is administered by government or private company. If Britain wants top quality healthcare then you are going to have to pay for it. I personally would go for full privatisation. Not only would it make healthcare the priority, as opposed to the demi job club the NHS has become, it would also out health tourism which puts a massive (and growing) strain on what are very limited resources. it would be wonderful if it wasn't a political issue here either but it is. anyway, i'm curious and correct me if i'm wrong here but from what i remember of my time in berlin, people are prepared to and do pay quite alot more in compulsary taxes in germany, such as pension tax, unemployment ins, health ins,disability ins,solidarity tax etc. now i seem to remember that for a gross wage of the equivalent of £25,000 (aprox 37k in euros) as a single bloke with no kids i would be paying tax of slightly over £8,500 (aprox 11,000 euros). where as in the uk on a £25,000 averagish wage i expect to pay (between income tax and NI) £5000. are these figures in the ball park? if they are, i for one wouldn't mind paying this kind of amount from my earningsas they do in germany for the level of service that they get. it's such a shame that in the uk in the early 80's people believed that a cut in taxes wouldn't effect services. if i was still paying income tax of 30% as i was when i left school i somehow think we wouldn't be having to put up with this arguement today. trouble is those who believed the pernicious idea of "there is no such thing as society" are loath to go back to a time when we could afford far better services by paying more for it. " Yes. Your figures are pretty close. The tax rates in Germany, for most of the working population, are actually lower than in the UK. However, as you say, the insurances paid are much higher than NI. but the quality of the services, especially health, are way in front of the UK. I can state this from very personal experience in the last year. | |||
| |||
"Yes. Your figures are pretty close. The tax rates in Germany, for most of the working population, are actually lower than in the UK. However, as you say, the insurances paid are much higher than NI. but the quality of the services, especially health, are way in front of the UK. I can state this from very personal experience in the last year." and lets gets this straight to .... i seem to remember there being state healthcare and private .... in being that the compulsary health insurance tax is just like say paying NI and the care provided is on a level playing field for everyone, that's to say they can't discriminate by pigeon holing you into a certain group on the basis of higher risk of ill-health, but you can still opt into a supplementary insurance scheme for private healthcare. | |||
"Yes. Your figures are pretty close. The tax rates in Germany, for most of the working population, are actually lower than in the UK. However, as you say, the insurances paid are much higher than NI. but the quality of the services, especially health, are way in front of the UK. I can state this from very personal experience in the last year. and lets gets this straight to .... i seem to remember there being state healthcare and private .... in being that the compulsary health insurance tax is just like say paying NI and the care provided is on a level playing field for everyone, that's to say they can't discriminate by pigeon holing you into a certain group on the basis of higher risk of ill-health, but you can still opt into a supplementary insurance scheme for private healthcare." Don't forget you are talking about ring fenced state funds set aside for specific purposes. No one in this country would mind paying more if it was nt just going into one almighty and inefficient pot. All of our taxes get spent as they are raised and that is the problem here. | |||
"Don't forget you are talking about ring fenced state funds set aside for specific purposes. No one in this country would mind paying more if it was nt just going into one almighty and inefficient pot. All of our taxes get spent as they are raised and that is the problem here." lets not forget that when tax was 30% the money was ring fenced for the nhs. but lowering tax by 10% was the main carrot that was offered to the public on the promise that the government would keep the nhs budget ring fenced .... but it turned out that they hadn't done their sums properly or they just lied .... one or the other. in any case, the mood of selfishness that swept the nation on false promises has brought us to where we are today. shame really. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Yes. Your figures are pretty close. The tax rates in Germany, for most of the working population, are actually lower than in the UK. However, as you say, the insurances paid are much higher than NI. but the quality of the services, especially health, are way in front of the UK. I can state this from very personal experience in the last year. and lets gets this straight to .... i seem to remember there being state healthcare and private .... in being that the compulsary health insurance tax is just like say paying NI and the care provided is on a level playing field for everyone, that's to say they can't discriminate by pigeon holing you into a certain group on the basis of higher risk of ill-health, but you can still opt into a supplementary insurance scheme for private healthcare." Yes the standard (compulsory) health insurance is similar to NI (although more expensive) and people are able to pay extra through a private plan for a better service, but the standard of treatment is pretty much the same. If you pay for supplementary private care you will be entitled to a single room, or maybe (depending on the hospital) a slightly better menu for the food, but that is it. The medical treatment is exactly the same. | |||
"Yes. Your figures are pretty close. The tax rates in Germany, for most of the working population, are actually lower than in the UK. However, as you say, the insurances paid are much higher than NI. but the quality of the services, especially health, are way in front of the UK. I can state this from very personal experience in the last year. and lets gets this straight to .... i seem to remember there being state healthcare and private .... in being that the compulsary health insurance tax is just like say paying NI and the care provided is on a level playing field for everyone, that's to say they can't discriminate by pigeon holing you into a certain group on the basis of higher risk of ill-health, but you can still opt into a supplementary insurance scheme for private healthcare. Yes the standard (compulsory) health insurance is similar to NI (although more expensive) and people are able to pay extra through a private plan for a better service, but the standard of treatment is pretty much the same. If you pay for supplementary private care you will be entitled to a single room, or maybe (depending on the hospital) a slightly better menu for the food, but that is it. The medical treatment is exactly the same. " so in effect, germany ring fences the tax take for healthcare? | |||
"Yes. Your figures are pretty close. The tax rates in Germany, for most of the working population, are actually lower than in the UK. However, as you say, the insurances paid are much higher than NI. but the quality of the services, especially health, are way in front of the UK. I can state this from very personal experience in the last year. and lets gets this straight to .... i seem to remember there being state healthcare and private .... in being that the compulsary health insurance tax is just like say paying NI and the care provided is on a level playing field for everyone, that's to say they can't discriminate by pigeon holing you into a certain group on the basis of higher risk of ill-health, but you can still opt into a supplementary insurance scheme for private healthcare. Yes the standard (compulsory) health insurance is similar to NI (although more expensive) and people are able to pay extra through a private plan for a better service, but the standard of treatment is pretty much the same. If you pay for supplementary private care you will be entitled to a single room, or maybe (depending on the hospital) a slightly better menu for the food, but that is it. The medical treatment is exactly the same. so in effect, germany ring fences the tax take for healthcare? " Sort of, but not really. While the insurance money paid for health care does stay in healthcare, which I suppose is a form of ring fencing, it isn't a tax. It is managed by private health insurance company's. For me that is one of the advantages of privatisation. Imagine if a private health company took billions in premiums for healthcare then decided to spend a chunk of it on a new railway line, or upgrading motorways. There would be uproar. But "in effect" that is what happens when politicians are put in charge. Pet projects (usually for their own vanity) take precedence. While I'm fully aware that governments have many things to manage and spend money on and it isn't really as simplistic as I've quoted above but I hope I've made the point. In private hands the NHS would be able to escape from being the political football it is today. It would be able to radically slim down its management and bureaucracy (I don't know of any other system in the world where management and admin staff outnumber front line) It would be a lot more focussed when negotiating with suppliers, and over time rid itself of the ridiculous PFI contracts. On the downside, the people who pay in would have to pay a bit more, but Britain has been getting healthcare on the cheap for far too long. Some people will agree, others will disagree, but the only certainty is that the NHS cannot, and will not, survive for much longer in its present form. | |||
| |||
"It would be able to radically slim down its management and bureaucracy (I don't know of any other system in the world where management and admin staff outnumber front line) " Do you have a reference for this statistic? I keep hearing it and yet it's certainly not the impression I get. And would you really want your qualified clinical staff doing the filing, organising rotas and doing the books? They're there to allow clinical staff to focus wholly on patient care. | |||
" the nhs plus other nationalised systems are fundamentaly incompatible to the conservative ideology though isnt it? It is not about ideology to anyone other than those of a sentimental nature. How can an ever ageing population that is increasing as a percentage against those who are working be supported by those in work? You dont have to be a great mathematician to work it out. An average UK citizen will take more out of the NHS in the last ten years of their life than they ever put into it in taxes. On average, we used to die not long after retirement unless heart attacks, cancer or lung disease gut us beforehand. We now live longer and therefore hit the state with a double whammy... 1) We live longer and therefore take pensions for longer 2) We cost the NHS a fortune keeping us alive from diseases and illnesses that once killed us early. It is nothing to do with right wing or left wing - it should be about maths and it is NOT FAIR to place an ever increasing burden on the coming generation to look after the elderly just because no government ever had the balls to spell out the true cost of pensions and the NHS." So do the young people who don't qualify for NHS treatment, get a reduction in tax and NI, or do they have to pay their own private premium AND pay for the treatment of those on the NHS? The only logical conclusion I can come to with your idea, is that A LOT of people are going to die. I'm glad its not you making the decisions. | |||
| |||
"Just to go on a little from my previous post. I remember during the last general election campaign that one or two commentators were saying that many in the Labour party were hoping they would lose it. On the basis of "the financial crisis is so bad that whichever party has to sort it out will be so unpopular they wouldn't get re elected for a generation". I see a similar situation here. The NHS crisis will probably come to a head before the 2020 general election and there is a distinct possibility that whoever wins next year will always be known as the party that lost the NHS. Be careful what you wish for Mr Milliband "ok, i'll let you drag it all back into being a political issue by your comments, but ... the money paid by the people is a Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung ... you have to pay it as a percentage of wages, in other words it's a compulsary tax. you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig. it's a tax as a few have said on this thread, they would be preparde to pay if ring fenced for the purpose. and it's still a shame that the politicians who stand to make a ton of cash from privatisation want to hi-jack public healthcare in britain. i just don't understand the philosophy of "if it moves charge it money, if it doesn't move charge it money until it does"  | |||
"Can anyone explain how you can stick to the Hippocratic oath, and yet refuse to help those without insurance or cannot afford the treatment?" Who is advocating anyone being denied treatment? | |||
" the nhs plus other nationalised systems are fundamentaly incompatible to the conservative ideology though isnt it? It is not about ideology to anyone other than those of a sentimental nature. How can an ever ageing population that is increasing as a percentage against those who are working be supported by those in work? You dont have to be a great mathematician to work it out. An average UK citizen will take more out of the NHS in the last ten years of their life than they ever put into it in taxes. On average, we used to die not long after retirement unless heart attacks, cancer or lung disease gut us beforehand. We now live longer and therefore hit the state with a double whammy... 1) We live longer and therefore take pensions for longer 2) We cost the NHS a fortune keeping us alive from diseases and illnesses that once killed us early. It is nothing to do with right wing or left wing - it should be about maths and it is NOT FAIR to place an ever increasing burden on the coming generation to look after the elderly just because no government ever had the balls to spell out the true cost of pensions and the NHS. So do the young people who don't qualify for NHS treatment, get a reduction in tax and NI, or do they have to pay their own private premium AND pay for the treatment of those on the NHS? The only logical conclusion I can come to with your idea, is that A LOT of people are going to die. I'm glad its not you making the decisions." What is the answer then? Apart from sneering remarks from the sidelines... What is your suggestion? | |||
| |||
"Can anyone explain how you can stick to the Hippocratic oath, and yet refuse to help those without insurance or cannot afford the treatment? Who is advocating anyone being denied treatment? " How else is someone going to get treated without an NHS, if they cannot afford insurance or treatment costs? BUPA are not in the business of treating people gratis. | |||
"If protecting the poorest in society from disease, pain and death is sneering then I'm guilty as charged. We CAN afford an NHS, we just have to want to, and be prepared to put more of our money into it. I'm prepared to put more in, if I know that's where its going. If you don't want to, fine. Pay your private health insurance then, just don't come running to the NHS when your insurers won't let you have your treatment because their fine print clauses, say your not allowed it. Believe me, that happens a lot, BUPA are renowned for it." I don't think that you have read any of this thread. | |||
| |||
" the nhs plus other nationalised systems are fundamentaly incompatible to the conservative ideology though isnt it? It is not about ideology to anyone other than those of a sentimental nature. How can an ever ageing population that is increasing as a percentage against those who are working be supported by those in work? You dont have to be a great mathematician to work it out. An average UK citizen will take more out of the NHS in the last ten years of their life than they ever put into it in taxes. On average, we used to die not long after retirement unless heart attacks, cancer or lung disease gut us beforehand. We now live longer and therefore hit the state with a double whammy... 1) We live longer and therefore take pensions for longer 2) We cost the NHS a fortune keeping us alive from diseases and illnesses that once killed us early. It is nothing to do with right wing or left wing - it should be about maths and it is NOT FAIR to place an ever increasing burden on the coming generation to look after the elderly just because no government ever had the balls to spell out the true cost of pensions and the NHS. So do the young people who don't qualify for NHS treatment, get a reduction in tax and NI, or do they have to pay their own private premium AND pay for the treatment of those on the NHS? The only logical conclusion I can come to with your idea, is that A LOT of people are going to die. I'm glad its not you making the decisions. What is the answer then? Apart from sneering remarks from the sidelines... What is your suggestion?" . We have to be honest and pay more national insurance (completely separate managed fund with elected members). And then ease away from healthcare that's non essential, like cosmetic surgery and maybe tighten up medical lawsuits and stupidly ridiculous payouts to under performing staff (there in the very small minority but it's essential to cut out to stop the rot from spreading to other staff). If we get some sensible changes in practises I wouldn't imagine it would have to raise NI that much. Maybe 50% | |||
"If protecting the poorest in society from disease, pain and death is sneering then I'm guilty as charged. We CAN afford an NHS, we just have to want to, and be prepared to put more of our money into it. I'm prepared to put more in, if I know that's where its going. If you don't want to, fine. Pay your private health insurance then, just don't come running to the NHS when your insurers won't let you have your treatment because their fine print clauses, say your not allowed it. Believe me, that happens a lot, BUPA are renowned for it. I don't think that you have read any of this thread." On the contrary, I merely boiled it down to the actual life threatening facts. | |||
"the system is there, the facilities are there, the staff are there..... everything is ready to go for properly funded broad spectrum, equitable, free at the point of use healthcare. no point wasting money throwing it all away and starting again or selling it off for scrap value to a bunch of profiteers. either increase tax by a set percentage and ring fence that percentage for the purpose or create a new law enforced health insurance, and ensure the system is run on a not for profit basis. the upshot is many people want this to happen and are prepared to pay extra divi's from their wages. possibly even the majority of folks but that's just speculative. bollocks to an EU referendum, if ever a referendum was needed on an important issue it is this, saying that i don't think a referendum is needed as it's common sense. the upshot is though, the business community is gonna have to realise their responsibility and stop relying on tax subsidies to prop up wages for their unrealistic tertiary industry business models (we can't all be shopkeepers run ny a nation of shopkeepers or we'll have no customers to sell to, only other shops) and start to pay higher wages to fund any kind of extra payment for healthcare made by the individual as it's highly unrealistic to expect everyone to be able to afford it as things are. it used to work, but the quest to turn it into a profit driven industry has broken the way it works. "
That's the perfect summation. | |||
"If protecting the poorest in society from disease, pain and death is sneering then I'm guilty as charged. We CAN afford an NHS, we just have to want to, and be prepared to put more of our money into it. I'm prepared to put more in, if I know that's where its going. If you don't want to, fine. Pay your private health insurance then, just don't come running to the NHS when your insurers won't let you have your treatment because their fine print clauses, say your not allowed it. Believe me, that happens a lot, BUPA are renowned for it. I don't think that you have read any of this thread." I was thinking the same, but for clarity I will try to explain. BUPA is a private health care company working in an environment where there is a state run service. Therefore it is an optional insurance to cover areas where the state system falls, or is perceived to fall, short. It is a choice that some will make or not. So BUPA are fully entitled to deny treatment to people that have not paid premiums. A compulsory healthcare system but operated by the private sector (as is the case here in Germany and many other country's) does not have that option. The clue is in the word "compulsory" It is compulsory for everyone who is working to pay the premiums, it is also compulsory for the state (or in some cases private unemployment insurance) to cover the premiums for anyone who is out of work and unable to pay. How much clearer do I need to make it? Nobody is denied treatment. | |||
"Just to go on a little from my previous post. I remember during the last general election campaign that one or two commentators were saying that many in the Labour party were hoping they would lose it. On the basis of "the financial crisis is so bad that whichever party has to sort it out will be so unpopular they wouldn't get re elected for a generation". I see a similar situation here. The NHS crisis will probably come to a head before the 2020 general election and there is a distinct possibility that whoever wins next year will always be known as the party that lost the NHS. Be careful what you wish for Mr Milliband
ok, i'll let you drag it all back into being a political issue by your comments, but ... the money paid by the people is a Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung ... you have to pay it as a percentage of wages, in other words it's a compulsary tax. you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig. it's a tax as a few have said on this thread, they would be preparde to pay if ring fenced for the purpose. and it's still a shame that the politicians who stand to make a ton of cash from privatisation want to hi-jack public healthcare in britain. i just don't understand the philosophy of "if it moves charge it money, if it doesn't move charge it money until it does" "I see where you are coming from, but using that logic compulsory car insurance would be just another form of tax. | |||
"If protecting the poorest in society from disease, pain and death is sneering then I'm guilty as charged. We CAN afford an NHS, we just have to want to, and be prepared to put more of our money into it. I'm prepared to put more in, if I know that's where its going. If you don't want to, fine. Pay your private health insurance then, just don't come running to the NHS when your insurers won't let you have your treatment because their fine print clauses, say your not allowed it. Believe me, that happens a lot, BUPA are renowned for it. I don't think that you have read any of this thread. I was thinking the same, but for clarity I will try to explain. BUPA is a private health care company working in an environment where there is a state run service. Therefore it is an optional insurance to cover areas where the state system falls, or is perceived to fall, short. It is a choice that some will make or not. So BUPA are fully entitled to deny treatment to people that have not paid premiums. A compulsory healthcare system but operated by the private sector (as is the case here in Germany and many other country's) does not have that option. The clue is in the word "compulsory" It is compulsory for everyone who is working to pay the premiums, it is also compulsory for the state (or in some cases private unemployment insurance) to cover the premiums for anyone who is out of work and unable to pay. How much clearer do I need to make it? Nobody is denied treatment. " so what are thoughts on the conservatives ambition of making it an environment filled by hundreds of profiteering companies? in many cases, companies that the politicians have major private financial interests in | |||
"Just to go on a little from my previous post. I remember during the last general election campaign that one or two commentators were saying that many in the Labour party were hoping they would lose it. On the basis of "the financial crisis is so bad that whichever party has to sort it out will be so unpopular they wouldn't get re elected for a generation". I see a similar situation here. The NHS crisis will probably come to a head before the 2020 general election and there is a distinct possibility that whoever wins next year will always be known as the party that lost the NHS. Be careful what you wish for Mr Milliband
ok, i'll let you drag it all back into being a political issue by your comments, but ... the money paid by the people is a Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung ... you have to pay it as a percentage of wages, in other words it's a compulsary tax. you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig. it's a tax as a few have said on this thread, they would be preparde to pay if ring fenced for the purpose. and it's still a shame that the politicians who stand to make a ton of cash from privatisation want to hi-jack public healthcare in britain. i just don't understand the philosophy of "if it moves charge it money, if it doesn't move charge it money until it does"
I see where you are coming from, but using that logic compulsory car insurance would be just another form of tax.
"the government don't collect my car insurance premium through direct taxation of my wages tho do they. and in any case, having a car is optional, being ill isn't really. | |||
" What is the answer then? Apart from sneering remarks from the sidelines... What is your suggestion?. We have to be honest and pay more national insurance (completely separate managed fund with elected members). And then ease away from healthcare that's non essential, like cosmetic surgery and maybe tighten up medical lawsuits and stupidly ridiculous payouts to under performing staff (there in the very small minority but it's essential to cut out to stop the rot from spreading to other staff). If we get some sensible changes in practises I wouldn't imagine it would have to raise NI that much. Maybe 50%" So your solution is in effect a temporary fix. As the working demographics keep changing we should just peridically keep raising taxes? Let's be straight here, no government is going to change employment law just for the NHS. As for non essential healthcare, who would be the arbiter of that minefield? | |||
" What is the answer then? Apart from sneering remarks from the sidelines... What is your suggestion?. We have to be honest and pay more national insurance (completely separate managed fund with elected members). And then ease away from healthcare that's non essential, like cosmetic surgery and maybe tighten up medical lawsuits and stupidly ridiculous payouts to under performing staff (there in the very small minority but it's essential to cut out to stop the rot from spreading to other staff). If we get some sensible changes in practises I wouldn't imagine it would have to raise NI that much. Maybe 50% So your solution is in effect a temporary fix. As the working demographics keep changing we should just peridically keep raising taxes? Let's be straight here, no government is going to change employment law just for the NHS. As for non essential healthcare, who would be the arbiter of that minefield? " the question of demographics is being addressed already, by way of upping the age of riterment, and i'm sure that before i hit the age of 67 they will up it again. so that's dealt with. as for non essential healthcare, what sort of healthcare do you personally consider non-essential? | |||
"If protecting the poorest in society from disease, pain and death is sneering then I'm guilty as charged. We CAN afford an NHS, we just have to want to, and be prepared to put more of our money into it. I'm prepared to put more in, if I know that's where its going. If you don't want to, fine. Pay your private health insurance then, just don't come running to the NHS when your insurers won't let you have your treatment because their fine print clauses, say your not allowed it. Believe me, that happens a lot, BUPA are renowned for it. I don't think that you have read any of this thread. I was thinking the same, but for clarity I will try to explain. BUPA is a private health care company working in an environment where there is a state run service. Therefore it is an optional insurance to cover areas where the state system falls, or is perceived to fall, short. It is a choice that some will make or not. So BUPA are fully entitled to deny treatment to people that have not paid premiums. A compulsory healthcare system but operated by the private sector (as is the case here in Germany and many other country's) does not have that option. The clue is in the word "compulsory" It is compulsory for everyone who is working to pay the premiums, it is also compulsory for the state (or in some cases private unemployment insurance) to cover the premiums for anyone who is out of work and unable to pay. How much clearer do I need to make it? Nobody is denied treatment. so what are thoughts on the conservatives ambition of making it an environment filled by hundreds of profiteering companies? in many cases, companies that the politicians have major private financial interests in" And your source for that is? One of Milliband's speeches? Or maybe a snippet from the ridiculous Kevin McGuire's column in the Mirror? However "if true" by replacing the word profiteering with competing I would be fine with it. Monopolies whether state run or privately owned very rarely give good service. | |||
" What is the answer then? Apart from sneering remarks from the sidelines... What is your suggestion?. We have to be honest and pay more national insurance (completely separate managed fund with elected members). And then ease away from healthcare that's non essential, like cosmetic surgery and maybe tighten up medical lawsuits and stupidly ridiculous payouts to under performing staff (there in the very small minority but it's essential to cut out to stop the rot from spreading to other staff). If we get some sensible changes in practises I wouldn't imagine it would have to raise NI that much. Maybe 50% So your solution is in effect a temporary fix. As the working demographics keep changing we should just peridically keep raising taxes? Let's be straight here, no government is going to change employment law just for the NHS. As for non essential healthcare, who would be the arbiter of that minefield? " Doctors. They are qualified. | |||
" Monopolies whether state run or privately owned very rarely give good service." dwr cymru or welsh water as you saes will know it as is a not for profit company, very effective it is too. the east coast rail line is state owned and in the last 5 years has returned £1 billion to the treasury, yet still they are forging ahead with privatisation to companies who will control both lines running north and have several tory mps as major share holders and directors (when they are not sitting in the house). there's countless other parlimentary records of mp's who have declared their interests in the main companies that are seeking to given the contracts (not buy them, but be given them) on offer as the present government "weigh in" the nhs like a bunch of scrap metal. now it doesn't matter whether it's tory mp's, labour mp's, liberals, greens, monster raving looneys or whatever who are involved, that's irrelevant. the important bit is that it's happening out of sight of the public and it's the public who stand to lose out. it's unfathomable that the post war baby boom generation seek to undo such a golden gift from their parents and grandparents, a gift that they suffered so much for in order to provide it. | |||
"If protecting the poorest in society from disease, pain and death is sneering then I'm guilty as charged. We CAN afford an NHS, we just have to want to, and be prepared to put more of our money into it. I'm prepared to put more in, if I know that's where its going. If you don't want to, fine. Pay your private health insurance then, just don't come running to the NHS when your insurers won't let you have your treatment because their fine print clauses, say your not allowed it. Believe me, that happens a lot, BUPA are renowned for it. I don't think that you have read any of this thread. I was thinking the same, but for clarity I will try to explain. BUPA is a private health care company working in an environment where there is a state run service. Therefore it is an optional insurance to cover areas where the state system falls, or is perceived to fall, short. It is a choice that some will make or not. So BUPA are fully entitled to deny treatment to people that have not paid premiums. A compulsory healthcare system but operated by the private sector (as is the case here in Germany and many other country's) does not have that option. The clue is in the word "compulsory" It is compulsory for everyone who is working to pay the premiums, it is also compulsory for the state (or in some cases private unemployment insurance) to cover the premiums for anyone who is out of work and unable to pay. How much clearer do I need to make it? Nobody is denied treatment. so what are thoughts on the conservatives ambition of making it an environment filled by hundreds of profiteering companies? in many cases, companies that the politicians have major private financial interests in" I would love to know where you have got this information from? Care to share some factual information that no one else seems to know. | |||
"I would love to know where you have got this information from? Care to share some factual information that no one else seems to know." don't you read the broadsheets? they glean their information from parliament.uk, where you can find The Register of Members' Financial Interests. it's rather long and rather a dull read compared to the latest best selling novel but the info is there. there's a lot of industries such as arms where mp's have controling roles in companies and huge shareholdings and as we know cameron himslef lead a delegation on ministers and civil servants with personal arms interests to the middle east just at the start of arab spring like so many double glazing salesmen. that turned out well didn't it? the same thing is happening with healthcare. i would post links but admin don't like it basically, but i've given you a guide to the resources which will confirm this but somehow i think you'll be too busy to check for yourself. | |||
" What is the answer then? Apart from sneering remarks from the sidelines... What is your suggestion?. We have to be honest and pay more national insurance (completely separate managed fund with elected members). And then ease away from healthcare that's non essential, like cosmetic surgery and maybe tighten up medical lawsuits and stupidly ridiculous payouts to under performing staff (there in the very small minority but it's essential to cut out to stop the rot from spreading to other staff). If we get some sensible changes in practises I wouldn't imagine it would have to raise NI that much. Maybe 50% So your solution is in effect a temporary fix. As the working demographics keep changing we should just peridically keep raising taxes? Let's be straight here, no government is going to change employment law just for the NHS. As for non essential healthcare, who would be the arbiter of that minefield? " . I never mentioned changing employment law. If you had to raise more because the population was getting older you'll have to raise more anyhow whether it be through private insurance or NI, so that's neither here nor there. The people would decide what medical care is given are the democratically elected members that I said we should get to oversee the sperate fund. The easiest way I can think to help with the current living longer problem is to phase in pensions. Maybe start with 1 days pension when your 65 2 days pension when your 68 3 days pension when your 71 4 days pension 74 full pension 77.... Also it would allow people to wind down into retirement rather than that current everything stops at 67(or what ever age it is now. | |||
" Monopolies whether state run or privately owned very rarely give good service. dwr cymru or welsh water as you saes will know it as is a not for profit company, very effective it is too. the east coast rail line is state owned and in the last 5 years has returned £1 billion to the treasury, yet still they are forging ahead with privatisation to companies who will control both lines running north and have several tory mps as major share holders and directors (when they are not sitting in the house). there's countless other parlimentary records of mp's who have declared their interests in the main companies that are seeking to given the contracts (not buy them, but be given them) on offer as the present government "weigh in" the nhs like a bunch of scrap metal. now it doesn't matter whether it's tory mp's, labour mp's, liberals, greens, monster raving looneys or whatever who are involved, that's irrelevant. the important bit is that it's happening out of sight of the public and it's the public who stand to lose out. it's unfathomable that the post war baby boom generation seek to undo such a golden gift from their parents and grandparents, a gift that they suffered so much for in order to provide it." Of course there are examples of monopolies that give good service. That is why I used the word "rarely" rather than "never" The "golden gift" as you call it was so good that not one country has copied it in 70 years. I wonder why? | |||
"I would love to know where you have got this information from? Care to share some factual information that no one else seems to know. don't you read the broadsheets? they glean their information from parliament.uk, where you can find The Register of Members' Financial Interests. it's rather long and rather a dull read compared to the latest best selling novel but the info is there. there's a lot of industries such as arms where mp's have controling roles in companies and huge shareholdings and as we know cameron himslef lead a delegation on ministers and civil servants with personal arms interests to the middle east just at the start of arab spring like so many double glazing salesmen. that turned out well didn't it? the same thing is happening with healthcare. i would post links but admin don't like it basically, but i've given you a guide to the resources which will confirm this but somehow i think you'll be too busy to check for yourself." In other words you just made it up? That sort of rhetoric is so harmful of any meaningful debate because you are assering something to be true because you think that it could be. How does that help a debate like this? | |||
"I would love to know where you have got this information from? Care to share some factual information that no one else seems to know. don't you read the broadsheets? they glean their information from parliament.uk, where you can find The Register of Members' Financial Interests. it's rather long and rather a dull read compared to the latest best selling novel but the info is there. there's a lot of industries such as arms where mp's have controling roles in companies and huge shareholdings and as we know cameron himslef lead a delegation on ministers and civil servants with personal arms interests to the middle east just at the start of arab spring like so many double glazing salesmen. that turned out well didn't it? the same thing is happening with healthcare. i would post links but admin don't like it basically, but i've given you a guide to the resources which will confirm this but somehow i think you'll be too busy to check for yourself. In other words you just made it up? That sort of rhetoric is so harmful of any meaningful debate because you are assering something to be true because you think that it could be. How does that help a debate like this?" you're just trolling the forum now. suffice to say that if we are to go down the privatisation route the industry would need to be closely scrutinised, audited, not have any ltd companies involved and certainly no shareholders. | |||
| |||
"suffice to say that if we are to go down the privatisation route the industry would need to be closely scrutinised, audited, not have any ltd companies involved and certainly no shareholders." i forgot to say ..... if we are expected to for the sake of arguement 10%of our wages to fund our own healthcare then business is going to have to pay higher wages to the equivalent of 10% more take home than they do now. | |||
"The NHS is a wonderful example of Victorian 'Caring Capitalism' although created by one of the most reforming Labour Governments since WWII. We care for the few needy by all of us paying. I wouldn't have it any other way. It is what sets us Brits apart from everyone else (especially the Yanks) and many have copied our system of free health care at point of need but with variations. Our NHS costs about 8% of GDP while the supposedly better American system costs about 12% of GDP and leaves 40 million with nothing. I am not worried by the furore over 'T.T.I.P.' as the NHS is already IN the public sector and will remain there. Without getting into tribal politics we should look at those leading the campaigns against the Trade Agreement with the US and ask why? Increased trade with the biggest (accessible) economy on earth will bring huge benefits to this country. But creating a total myth that suddenly US Insurance companies will sue the British Government the day after its signed is just downright insulting. But sadly the social media and the BBC, Guardian, etc have all piled in with 'uncertainties' and 'possibilities' completely missing the point. If a company was already (note ALREADY) employed by the NHS and a change of policy led to loss of business and breach of contract they could sue. They can now. So what is different? Much as I love the NHS and am still alive because of the superb care I received (some may think that is cause for a complaint to the NHS) it is also foolish to think change is impossible. It HAS to change to survive and that will need some more money but a LOAD of efficiencies. Its our money that pays for it and we have a right to demand it is used wisely. And before anyone piles in I think the top / down changes brought in by the Coalition was a complete waste of money, took our eye of the real problems and allowed Labour to take a justified position. Much as I despise that liar Andy Burnham, on that ONE thing he is right." chishy ... it's not one party or another on this. they have both been complicit in the run down of the nhs since the begining of the 80's. if any party fucks this up the whole nation will be pissed i hope we agree for once on this. | |||
" i forgot to say ..... if we are expected to for the sake of arguement 10%of our wages to fund our own healthcare then business is going to have to pay higher wages to the equivalent of 10% more take home than they do now." This may come as a shock but I agree with your position. You only have to look at the wider economic effects of the 'Health Insurance' factor in America to see its a failed idea. It costs 50% more than ours and leaves millions to just die. I have worked there and seen it. I was covered by my employer while I worked there. If he hadn't I wouldn't have gone. Most Americans will tell you they choose a particular career because of the Health Insurance cover before any other factor. So many industries in the USA are short of the best people because they can't afford to offer the best Health Care. Its a total nonsense and denies free movement of people to wherever they wish to work. And why so many poorer people go into their military. We have something to be proud of and should fight hard to keep it but not deny the basic facts it is grossly inefficient. And to have people run up the 'Save the NHS and ban TTIP' is just a political diversion. | |||
" chishy ... it's not one party or another on this. they have both been complicit in the run down of the nhs since the begining of the 80's. if any party fucks this up the whole nation will be pissed i hope we agree for once on this." maybe 'run down' is the wrong phrase but I take your point. I think the two main parties who have Governed this country since WWII (even this Coalition) have placed the NHS on a pedestal in fear of losing votes. Its the tribal politics I referred to. What they should have done is bear down on the huge number of administrators and spent more on new technology and research. And we should recognise the impact on the NHS of uncontrolled immigration which has brought the few failings in the NHS to light as they are magnified. There IS a place for private businesses (I would prefer smaller local ones to the Sercos of the world) in the NHS especially in the service side. The days of a nurse mopping the floor are long gone but we need more Matrons to instil some of the old basics of respect and care back into the wards. And scrap targets and report facts. | |||
"...... you're just trolling the forum now....." I think trolling would be pretty accurately described as posting inflammatory rubbish with the sole purpose of inflaming others. In my book, submitting blatant lies on a thread and stating that they are true because you happen to think they could be true is trolling. Stick to verifiable facts and reasoned argument and the place remains a much healthier (sic) place for all. | |||
"Who here, sees the nhs being privatised? Apparently medical tretments in the usa can be 3 times more expensive,than costs to the nhs. The private companies are here now on the fringes of the nhs. Are these american companies going to get to take over the whole nhs? Esp. With the north atlantic agreement knocking at the door. The NHS cannot continue under the current model. If someone dreamed up the current NHS model today it would be scrapped as being impossible to fund. People are living longer and curing preventing the diseases that once killed people is very expensive. Something has to change but I have yet to see or hear a politician brave enough to stand up and tell us what we really all should see as being obvious. My opinion is that we have to pick a future date - say Jan 01st 2016 and everyone who turns 18 after that date must have a basic form of medical insurance. Employers provide tax deductible health insurance and the state provides a small emergency welfare fund for those who fall between the gaps. The NHS cannot continue as it is because the % of non working people has already exceeded those in gainful employment. At the time the NHS was created 90% were working and supporting only 10% that were not." We pay medical insurance as part of our National Insurance contributions | |||
"...... you're just trolling the forum now..... I think trolling would be pretty accurately described as posting inflammatory rubbish with the sole purpose of inflaming others. In my book, submitting blatant lies on a thread and stating that they are true because you happen to think they could be true is trolling. Stick to verifiable facts and reasoned argument and the place remains a much healthier (sic) place for all." yeah ... what evs trevs  | |||
"Stick to verifiable facts and reasoned argument and the place remains a much healthier (sic) place for all." here's that verification you wanted .... this info is freely available on parliaments own website (look under House of Commons,The Register of Members’ Financial Interests (formerly Register of Members’ Interests) and can be cross referenced to the websites of the mp's and businesses concerned, financial times archives, the economist magazine archives, Health investor magazine archives, care industry news, bloomberg business week etc. etc. etc. In total 76 MPs have financial links to companies or individuals involved in private healthcare. Of them, 61 are Conservative MPs, 8 are Labour MPs, and 4 are Liberal Democrats, leaving 1 other from the Bishops. none of these mp's would be able to vote on the private healthcare bill if it was at local government level. here are some of those mp's and their private interests Iain Duncan-Smith: MP for Chingford and Woodford Green. Has shares in hygiene technology company Byotrol plc, which sells products to the NHS. Nick de Bois: MP for Enfield North - De Bois is the majority shareholder in Rapier Design Group, an events management company heavily involved with the private medical and pharmaceutical industries, and whose clients include leading names such as AstraZeneca. The company was established by the Tory MP in 1998. Last year it had a turnover of £13m. Last April, Rapier Design purchased Hampton Medical Conferences to “strengthen the company’s position in the medical sector”. It is involved in running conferences and other events for private-sector clients, and for NHS hospitals. A number of the company’s clients are “partners” of the National Association of Primary Care (NAPC), a lobby group supporting the health secretary’s plans. Rapier Design Group’s biggest clients stand to profit when the NHS is opened up to wider private-sector involvement. The GP commissioning consortium for south-west Kent, covering 49 GP practices and known as Salveo, has already signed a contract with the pharmaceuticals giant AstraZeneca aimed at improving diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease JacobRees-Mogg: MP for North-East Somerset: Partner of Somerset Capital Management LLP, who have Redwood Emerging Markets Dividend Income Fund as a client, which invests in Healthcare. MP for North-East Somerset, has shares in Lloyd George Management Ltd; investment management, who invest in Healthcare. ?According to the electoral Commission, he received £2,000 to his constituency office on the 14th April, 2010 from Mr Robin Crispin Odey, a hedge funder who has invested in Circle healthcare. George Freeman: MP for Mid Norfolk. His own business: 4d-biomedical which is a specialist adviser on Healthcare markets, Technology development, Business strategy & Venture financing, working with NHS trusts. Speaking in Parliament on 11 November 2010 during the Policy For Growth debate he said, "The third is the national health service. I know from my own experience that we are sitting on billions of pounds-worth of patient data. Let us think about how we can unlock the value of those data around the world.".... See Hansard parliament.uk Dr Phillip Lee MP for Bracknell - Paid in a capacity as a freelance Doctor for Medical Solutions Ltd, who provide medical cover for events, including blood & Organ transport, ambulances, life boat crew and mobile treatment centres. Peter Lilley: Hitchin and Harpenden MP, Non-Executive Director of management software and systems company Idox plc. Idox provides local authorities with software & managed services, including the NHS Health Libraries Group, NHS Education for Scotland. TfPL part of the Idox Group, is a recruitment, training and consulting company, whose clients include NHS and private healthcare. Tim Loughton: MP for East Worthing and Shoreham has shares in JP Morgan who are major players in healthcare. According to their website they serve: 1,100 hospitals, 10 of the top 10 health insurers, thousands of physicians groups, top five pharmacy benefit managers, six of the top eight pharmacy retailers. Patrick Mercer: MP for Newark. Advisor to Premier Composites Ltd, who design and build 'healthcare pods' for some private healthcare buildings, including a care home in Scotland and a mental health lodge in Preston Brooks Newmark: Braintree MP: Provides research and advice on investment opportunities in the UK and Europe to Apollo Management LP, both independently and through Telesis Management Ltd. The former are a private equity company, which invests in the healthcare industries. John Redwood: Wokingham: Chairman of Investment Committee of Evercore Pan-Asset Capital Management Ltd. Evercore are involved in huge healthcare deals, and has shares in the company. Malcolm Rifkind: MP for Kensington. Member of Advisory Board, L.E.K. Consulting LL, which specialises in helping private healthcare companies identify "growth and new business development" and "opportunities with the government". Non-executive director of Unilever, Unilever Ventures joined with a company called Vectura to form a pharma arm to their company.Non-Executive Director of Adam Smith International; which has described the NHS as a "centralized tax-funded monopoly". Instead it argues that the UK should "shift the balance of healthcare spending away from tax and more to the individual." At the same time, it says "we need to transform today’s state monopoly providers into independent, competitive ones" - ie private for-profit healthcare providers. In addition they have produced a couple of reports on the promotion of dismantling the NHS called: The NHS need for radical reform, From cradle to grave: The death of the NHS?, and Good sense on the NHS. Included under this registered interest, were Amphion Ltd, which has partner companies involved in healthcare including Firestar software, M2M, & Motfi BioSciences, Inc. David Ruffley: MP for Bury St Edmunds is a strategic advisor to Partnership Group Holdings Limited. Through it’s website, it offers residential care fee insurance, stating: ‘While the state can help with some costs, eligibility for help is limited and many people find themselves over the threshold for support so it is important to be aware of financial options available to you.’ The company are a subsidiary of PAG Holdings Limited, which is majority owned by Cinven Funds. According to its 2010 annual report, they initiated a direct sales channel for care annuities, as well as ‘provide competitive loans to people with impaired lives.’ On its website it states: ‘Cinven has been involved in European healthcare over a 20-year period and invests in market-leading, cash-generative companies.’ Cinven is a leading buyout firm, who bought 25 private hospitals from Bupa. Other UK investments include. Spire Healthcare, who run private healthcare hospitals, and whose clinical director Jean-Jacques de Gorter said the use of private sector would spiral as a result of Andrew Lansley’s reform proposals. General healthcare group, which runs healthcare services, and whose group includes: BMI healthcare. The other company is Générale de Santé who is France’s leading healthcare provider.Mr Ruffley also received a £10,000 donation from Caroline Nash in 2009 - Ms Nash is the wife of John Nash who also funded Lansley's office when he was shadow health minister. He was Chairman of Care UK at the time. Now Care UK have won contracts in his constituency. Chris Skidmore: Conservative MP for Kingswood who sits on the Health Select Committee received a payment of £3,500 for 4 hours work - giving speeches to STAC Consultancy which specialises in the launch of pharmaceutical products, strategic branding and medical education.Chris Skidmore's family also owns a company called Skidmore Medical, which appears to be solely selling a physiologic Vascular testing equipment. The company made a donation to him of £7,500 in June 2010 which also appears on register of members interests. | |||
"Stick to verifiable facts and reasoned argument and the place remains a much healthier (sic) place for all. here's that verification you wanted .... this info is freely available on parliaments own website (look under House of Commons,The Register of Members’ Financial Interests (formerly Register of Members’ Interests) and can be cross referenced to the websites of the mp's and businesses concerned, financial times archives, the economist magazine archives, Health investor magazine archives, care industry news, bloomberg business week etc. etc. etc. In total 76 MPs have financial links to companies or individuals involved in private healthcare. Of them, 61 are Conservative MPs, 8 are Labour MPs, and 4 are Liberal Democrats, leaving 1 other from the Bishops. none of these mp's would be able to vote on the private healthcare bill if it was at local government level. here are some of those mp's and their private interests Iain Duncan-Smith: MP for Chingford and Woodford Green. Has shares in hygiene technology company Byotrol plc, which sells products to the NHS. Nick de Bois: MP for Enfield North - De Bois is the majority shareholder in Rapier Design Group, an events management company heavily involved with the private medical and pharmaceutical industries, and whose clients include leading names such as AstraZeneca. The company was established by the Tory MP in 1998. Last year it had a turnover of £13m. Last April, Rapier Design purchased Hampton Medical Conferences to “strengthen the company’s position in the medical sector”. It is involved in running conferences and other events for private-sector clients, and for NHS hospitals. A number of the company’s clients are “partners” of the National Association of Primary Care (NAPC), a lobby group supporting the health secretary’s plans. Rapier Design Group’s biggest clients stand to profit when the NHS is opened up to wider private-sector involvement. The GP commissioning consortium for south-west Kent, covering 49 GP practices and known as Salveo, has already signed a contract with the pharmaceuticals giant AstraZeneca aimed at improving diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease JacobRees-Mogg: MP for North-East Somerset: Partner of Somerset Capital Management LLP, who have Redwood Emerging Markets Dividend Income Fund as a client, which invests in Healthcare. MP for North-East Somerset, has shares in Lloyd George Management Ltd; investment management, who invest in Healthcare. ?According to the electoral Commission, he received £2,000 to his constituency office on the 14th April, 2010 from Mr Robin Crispin Odey, a hedge funder who has invested in Circle healthcare. George Freeman: MP for Mid Norfolk. His own business: 4d-biomedical which is a specialist adviser on Healthcare markets, Technology development, Business strategy & Venture financing, working with NHS trusts. Speaking in Parliament on 11 November 2010 during the Policy For Growth debate he said, "The third is the national health service. I know from my own experience that we are sitting on billions of pounds-worth of patient data. Let us think about how we can unlock the value of those data around the world.".... See Hansard parliament.uk Dr Phillip Lee MP for Bracknell - Paid in a capacity as a freelance Doctor for Medical Solutions Ltd, who provide medical cover for events, including blood & Organ transport, ambulances, life boat crew and mobile treatment centres. Peter Lilley: Hitchin and Harpenden MP, Non-Executive Director of management software and systems company Idox plc. Idox provides local authorities with software & managed services, including the NHS Health Libraries Group, NHS Education for Scotland. TfPL part of the Idox Group, is a recruitment, training and consulting company, whose clients include NHS and private healthcare. Tim Loughton: MP for East Worthing and Shoreham has shares in JP Morgan who are major players in healthcare. According to their website they serve: 1,100 hospitals, 10 of the top 10 health insurers, thousands of physicians groups, top five pharmacy benefit managers, six of the top eight pharmacy retailers. Patrick Mercer: MP for Newark. Advisor to Premier Composites Ltd, who design and build 'healthcare pods' for some private healthcare buildings, including a care home in Scotland and a mental health lodge in Preston Brooks Newmark: Braintree MP: Provides research and advice on investment opportunities in the UK and Europe to Apollo Management LP, both independently and through Telesis Management Ltd. The former are a private equity company, which invests in the healthcare industries. John Redwood: Wokingham: Chairman of Investment Committee of Evercore Pan-Asset Capital Management Ltd. Evercore are involved in huge healthcare deals, and has shares in the company. Malcolm Rifkind: MP for Kensington. Member of Advisory Board, L.E.K. Consulting LL, which specialises in helping private healthcare companies identify "growth and new business development" and "opportunities with the government". Non-executive director of Unilever, Unilever Ventures joined with a company called Vectura to form a pharma arm to their company.Non-Executive Director of Adam Smith International; which has described the NHS as a "centralized tax-funded monopoly". Instead it argues that the UK should "shift the balance of healthcare spending away from tax and more to the individual." At the same time, it says "we need to transform today’s state monopoly providers into independent, competitive ones" - ie private for-profit healthcare providers. In addition they have produced a couple of reports on the promotion of dismantling the NHS called: The NHS need for radical reform, From cradle to grave: The death of the NHS?, and Good sense on the NHS. Included under this registered interest, were Amphion Ltd, which has partner companies involved in healthcare including Firestar software, M2M, & Motfi BioSciences, Inc. David Ruffley: MP for Bury St Edmunds is a strategic advisor to Partnership Group Holdings Limited. Through it’s website, it offers residential care fee insurance, stating: ‘While the state can help with some costs, eligibility for help is limited and many people find themselves over the threshold for support so it is important to be aware of financial options available to you.’ The company are a subsidiary of PAG Holdings Limited, which is majority owned by Cinven Funds. According to its 2010 annual report, they initiated a direct sales channel for care annuities, as well as ‘provide competitive loans to people with impaired lives.’ On its website it states: ‘Cinven has been involved in European healthcare over a 20-year period and invests in market-leading, cash-generative companies.’ Cinven is a leading buyout firm, who bought 25 private hospitals from Bupa. Other UK investments include. Spire Healthcare, who run private healthcare hospitals, and whose clinical director Jean-Jacques de Gorter said the use of private sector would spiral as a result of Andrew Lansley’s reform proposals. General healthcare group, which runs healthcare services, and whose group includes: BMI healthcare. The other company is Générale de Santé who is France’s leading healthcare provider.Mr Ruffley also received a £10,000 donation from Caroline Nash in 2009 - Ms Nash is the wife of John Nash who also funded Lansley's office when he was shadow health minister. He was Chairman of Care UK at the time. Now Care UK have won contracts in his constituency. Chris Skidmore: Conservative MP for Kingswood who sits on the Health Select Committee received a payment of £3,500 for 4 hours work - giving speeches to STAC Consultancy which specialises in the launch of pharmaceutical products, strategic branding and medical education.Chris Skidmore's family also owns a company called Skidmore Medical, which appears to be solely selling a physiologic Vascular testing equipment. The company made a donation to him of £7,500 in June 2010 which also appears on register of members interests. " | |||
"Stick to verifiable facts and reasoned argument and the place remains a much healthier (sic) place for all. here's that verification you wanted .... this info is freely available on parliaments own website (look under House of Commons,The Register of Members’ Financial Interests (formerly Register of Members’ Interests) and can be cross referenced to the websites of the mp's and businesses concerned, financial times archives, the economist magazine archives, Health investor magazine archives, care industry news, bloomberg business week etc. etc. etc. In total 76 MPs have financial links to companies or individuals involved in private healthcare. Of them, 61 are Conservative MPs, 8 are Labour MPs, and 4 are Liberal Democrats, leaving 1 other from the Bishops. none of these mp's would be able to vote on the private healthcare bill if it was at local government level. here are some of those mp's and their private interests Iain Duncan-Smith: MP for Chingford and Woodford Green. Has shares in hygiene technology company Byotrol plc, which sells products to the NHS. Nick de Bois: MP for Enfield North - De Bois is the majority shareholder in Rapier Design Group, an events management company heavily involved with the private medical and pharmaceutical industries, and whose clients include leading names such as AstraZeneca. The company was established by the Tory MP in 1998. Last year it had a turnover of £13m. Last April, Rapier Design purchased Hampton Medical Conferences to “strengthen the company’s position in the medical sector”. It is involved in running conferences and other events for private-sector clients, and for NHS hospitals. A number of the company’s clients are “partners” of the National Association of Primary Care (NAPC), a lobby group supporting the health secretary’s plans. Rapier Design Group’s biggest clients stand to profit when the NHS is opened up to wider private-sector involvement. The GP commissioning consortium for south-west Kent, covering 49 GP practices and known as Salveo, has already signed a contract with the pharmaceuticals giant AstraZeneca aimed at improving diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease JacobRees-Mogg: MP for North-East Somerset: Partner of Somerset Capital Management LLP, who have Redwood Emerging Markets Dividend Income Fund as a client, which invests in Healthcare. MP for North-East Somerset, has shares in Lloyd George Management Ltd; investment management, who invest in Healthcare. ?According to the electoral Commission, he received £2,000 to his constituency office on the 14th April, 2010 from Mr Robin Crispin Odey, a hedge funder who has invested in Circle healthcare. George Freeman: MP for Mid Norfolk. His own business: 4d-biomedical which is a specialist adviser on Healthcare markets, Technology development, Business strategy & Venture financing, working with NHS trusts. Speaking in Parliament on 11 November 2010 during the Policy For Growth debate he said, "The third is the national health service. I know from my own experience that we are sitting on billions of pounds-worth of patient data. Let us think about how we can unlock the value of those data around the world.".... See Hansard parliament.uk Dr Phillip Lee MP for Bracknell - Paid in a capacity as a freelance Doctor for Medical Solutions Ltd, who provide medical cover for events, including blood & Organ transport, ambulances, life boat crew and mobile treatment centres. Peter Lilley: Hitchin and Harpenden MP, Non-Executive Director of management software and systems company Idox plc. Idox provides local authorities with software & managed services, including the NHS Health Libraries Group, NHS Education for Scotland. TfPL part of the Idox Group, is a recruitment, training and consulting company, whose clients include NHS and private healthcare. Tim Loughton: MP for East Worthing and Shoreham has shares in JP Morgan who are major players in healthcare. According to their website they serve: 1,100 hospitals, 10 of the top 10 health insurers, thousands of physicians groups, top five pharmacy benefit managers, six of the top eight pharmacy retailers. Patrick Mercer: MP for Newark. Advisor to Premier Composites Ltd, who design and build 'healthcare pods' for some private healthcare buildings, including a care home in Scotland and a mental health lodge in Preston Brooks Newmark: Braintree MP: Provides research and advice on investment opportunities in the UK and Europe to Apollo Management LP, both independently and through Telesis Management Ltd. The former are a private equity company, which invests in the healthcare industries. John Redwood: Wokingham: Chairman of Investment Committee of Evercore Pan-Asset Capital Management Ltd. Evercore are involved in huge healthcare deals, and has shares in the company. Malcolm Rifkind: MP for Kensington. Member of Advisory Board, L.E.K. Consulting LL, which specialises in helping private healthcare companies identify "growth and new business development" and "opportunities with the government". Non-executive director of Unilever, Unilever Ventures joined with a company called Vectura to form a pharma arm to their company.Non-Executive Director of Adam Smith International; which has described the NHS as a "centralized tax-funded monopoly". Instead it argues that the UK should "shift the balance of healthcare spending away from tax and more to the individual." At the same time, it says "we need to transform today’s state monopoly providers into independent, competitive ones" - ie private for-profit healthcare providers. In addition they have produced a couple of reports on the promotion of dismantling the NHS called: The NHS need for radical reform, From cradle to grave: The death of the NHS?, and Good sense on the NHS. Included under this registered interest, were Amphion Ltd, which has partner companies involved in healthcare including Firestar software, M2M, & Motfi BioSciences, Inc. David Ruffley: MP for Bury St Edmunds is a strategic advisor to Partnership Group Holdings Limited. Through it’s website, it offers residential care fee insurance, stating: ‘While the state can help with some costs, eligibility for help is limited and many people find themselves over the threshold for support so it is important to be aware of financial options available to you.’ The company are a subsidiary of PAG Holdings Limited, which is majority owned by Cinven Funds. According to its 2010 annual report, they initiated a direct sales channel for care annuities, as well as ‘provide competitive loans to people with impaired lives.’ On its website it states: ‘Cinven has been involved in European healthcare over a 20-year period and invests in market-leading, cash-generative companies.’ Cinven is a leading buyout firm, who bought 25 private hospitals from Bupa. Other UK investments include. Spire Healthcare, who run private healthcare hospitals, and whose clinical director Jean-Jacques de Gorter said the use of private sector would spiral as a result of Andrew Lansley’s reform proposals. General healthcare group, which runs healthcare services, and whose group includes: BMI healthcare. The other company is Générale de Santé who is France’s leading healthcare provider.Mr Ruffley also received a £10,000 donation from Caroline Nash in 2009 - Ms Nash is the wife of John Nash who also funded Lansley's office when he was shadow health minister. He was Chairman of Care UK at the time. Now Care UK have won contracts in his constituency. Chris Skidmore: Conservative MP for Kingswood who sits on the Health Select Committee received a payment of £3,500 for 4 hours work - giving speeches to STAC Consultancy which specialises in the launch of pharmaceutical products, strategic branding and medical education.Chris Skidmore's family also owns a company called Skidmore Medical, which appears to be solely selling a physiologic Vascular testing equipment. The company made a donation to him of £7,500 in June 2010 which also appears on register of members interests. " . .
Pigs at the trough again, who'd have thought it.
It's exactly why we should ban any politician from any outside interest.
I'd rather pay them a 100 grand a year than have mp,s with "other business interests". | |||
"Stick to verifiable facts and reasoned argument and the place remains a much healthier (sic) place for all." here's that verification you wanted ...." Quote: "2. How much do the trade unions donate? Out of the £19 million received last year, £9 million was received via trade unions donations, or 46 per cent. Money from trade unions reached a peak at the last general election at £14 million, or 54 per cent of their total donations. This is how much the unions have given over the last decade totalling a whopping £113 million: https://spectator.subscribeonline.co.uk/subscriptions/spectator-bundle?offerCode=XMAS14H Quote: "... in April 2013 two new loans were taken out worth £1,217,500 each from the Co-op and Unity Trust bank. This brings the total to £12.8 million. With these loans on their book, the possibility of the changes to how Labour is funded leaving the party going bankrupt, as Len McCluskey has suggested, does not look entirely implausible. Unite Union whose votes made Milliband Leader. And who continue to gerrymander Union officers into safe Labour seats. Oh wait.... no Labour seat is safe anymore. Especially in Scotland... One set of people own Labour. That is a world away from what you just copied out. Oh and the next time you hear Milliband and Harman bang on about 'Millionaire's Tax Cuts' and the 'Tory Toffs' remember this. They are all millionaires: http://order-order.com/2010/10/11/shadow-cabinet-of-millionaires/ Disagreement is one thing. Hypocrisy and lies are another. | |||
".Pigs at the trough again, who'd have thought it. It's exactly why we should ban any politician from any outside interest. I'd rather pay them a 100 grand a year than have mp,s with "other business interests"." Erm .. you forget that all this is public record and most Labour MPs also have 'outside interests' also declared. And any MP who makes a comment in the House HAS to mention his 'interests' at that time. When was the last time you heard Ed Balls say he was funded by the Unions? And you think Milliband, Harman, Balls etc haven't got THEIR snouts in other troughs? How did they become millionaires then? They point the finger at the Tories and they have more millionaires on the Labour front Bench! Well at least they benefit from that evil 'Millionaire's Tax Cut'. Oh wait sorry .... it was a tax increase of 5% over what Labour had done in 13 years. Maybe THAT is why they hate it but daren't say why ... http://order-order.com/2010/10/11/shadow-cabinet-of-millionaires/ Bloody hypocrites...  | |||
" What would be news is that if you can post a link to a website or a reputable source that supports the claim of yours that the conservatives are looking to create an environment of profiteering companies." is the financial times reputable enough for you? "Private sector companies are engaged in an “arms race” to win £5bn of National Health Service work being tendered including hospitals, mental healthcare, pathology and GP clinics in a move that could transform the future of healthcare in Britain. About 160 large-scale contracts are being advertised to private sector bidders including seven that are worth more than £100m in value, according to research by Bain, the consultancy, commissioned by the Financial Times. Bain said it had seen a “significant increase” in contract volumes, driven by financial pressures and the Health and Social Care Act, giving commissioners more clarity on the ground rules for procurement. The increase comes despite a series of scandals involving outsourced public sector contracts in recent months, including the alleged overcharging by Serco and G4S on prisoner tagging contracts. On Monday, NHS Direct – one of the providers of the troubled NHS 111 helpline – announced it was planning to pull out of its contracts because they were “financially unsustainable”. Christian Mazzi, head of health at Bain, said: “Now the rules of the game are changing. We can compete for all of the NHS budget on equal terms. What was traditionally locked up in the NHS is going to become available to the private sector.” The largest is a £1.2bn or £160m-a-year deal providing health services including end of life care for older people in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough – the biggest yet. But there are also several smaller deals worth £16.5m to £30m a year that collectively add up to a significant shift in how the NHS operates, with tens of thousands of staff potentially being transferred to private sector providers as a result. Private sector providers are confident more opportunities will come to market. Faced with a £30bn shortfall in the NHS budget over the next seven years, many trusts believe they have little option to work with the private sector, which pledges to invest in new technology, improve staff productivity and use economies of scale to deliver services at lower costs. Mr Mazzi described it as “an arms race” as companies compete to get first-mover advantage and prove their credentials in the new market. “As this market begins to open up, whoever can prove first that they are effective in working with the public sector and creating value will be best positioned to become future leaders,” he said. Although some of the tenders are second or even third generation contracts, there are sufficient new ones to suggest that privatisation is accelerating, Bain said. It cited everything from entire hospitals to individual services such as pathology, sexual health or musculoskeletal services being put out to tender in the next few years. William Laing, of Laing & Buisson, the healthcare analyst, agreed that companies were involved in a “land grab” because the market is “opening up”. “There is a general sense that outsourcing is happening more?.?.?.?if you look at the procurement websites they are chockablock with contracts,” he said. Although the privatisation of entire hospitals remains politically toxic, the takeover of Hinchingbrooke in Cambridgeshire by the private equity-owned Circle healthcare in a £1bn ten-year contract has paved the way for further deals. “Potentially all the hospitals in special measures are followers of the first Circle example,” said Mr Laing. Despite this, most of the contracts currently out to tender are in well-trodden fields for the private sector such as mental healthcare, which has been open to investment from the private sector from the 1980s. But there are also services being put out to tender for the first time. Serco, for example, is hoping to secure further deals after winning last year’s groundbreaking £140m contract to run community services in Suffolk over the next three years. More than 1,030 NHS nurses and medics transferred to the company as part of the deal. Increasing private sector involvement is also likely to be driven by the 211 new clinical commissioning groups, which are responsible for procuring about 70 per cent of the NHS budget. The CCGs replaced 150 primary care trusts. Vernon Baxter, a private healthcare analyst and the editor of Health Investor magazine, said relatively few CCGs were sufficiently mobilised and prepared to commission large, co-ordinated contracts on the scale of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough deal, making the outsourcing of smaller, individual services more likely in the short term. Some CCGs are also more willing to embrace the private sector than others. The Department of Health emphasised that the private sector was competing against the non-profit sector as well as social enterprises: “There is absolutely no government policy to privatise NHS services,” it said. “The NHS will stay free for everyone, but it’s right that patients should get the best service – regardless of who provides it.” But Dr Richard Taylor, leader of the National Health Action Party, which is opposed to the privatisation of the NHS, said the growing number of contracts provided “the starkest evidence yet that Andrew Lansley’s Health and Social Care Act has changed NHS England from a provider of healthcare into a purchaser of services from private providers.” Top of the tenders: Big deals companies are battling for include?.?.?.? £5bn – Total value of NHS work being tendered – including: £800m-£1.12bn for elderly care provision July 2013 Cambridge and Peterborough want a provider to take on services including unplanned acute hospital care for the elderly and end-of-life care £814m for home support and care homes May 2012 Birmingham wants a framework of providers for home support services and homes for the elderly and adults with mental health issues or disabilities £350m for a youth detention centre July 2012 A contract to operate and manage a secure accommodation centre for young offenders in London, including the provision of education and healthcare services £267.9m for housing the elderly May 2013 Westminster wants a provider to deliver care services and residential homes for older people £210m for mental health team June 2013 Bristol wants to re-tender community adult mental health services because of low patient and staff satisfaction with the current provider £175m for joint and limb disorders August 2012 West Sussex is considering setting up an integrated musculoskeletal service £63m for midwifery June 2013 Wiltshire is looking for a provider of a midwife-led service to support women and their families throughout pregnancy and labour source ...FT.com (article entitled "‘Arms race’ over £5bn in NHS work" by Gil Plimmer | |||
| |||
