FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Should we encourage more British births ?
Should we encourage more British births ?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently Farage thinks we should. My immediate reaction was yes, however wouldn't this increase demands on NHS etc the same way that migration does ? So what problem is it solving ? " We need more young people, otherwise the country stagnated like Japan. Otherwise immigration is the only solution. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently Farage thinks we should. My immediate reaction was yes, however wouldn't this increase demands on NHS etc the same way that migration does ? So what problem is it solving ? " It would increase demands on the education system too. It’s almost like it’s an ill thought out attempt to grab attention. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives." I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When he says British births? What other details did he add ?" I could only find this in the Daily Mail. I assume there's not much more detail, and the implication is he wants more white people and less brown people, without actually saying that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When he says British births? What other details did he add ?" Article here https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13530147/Nigel-Farage-says-people-encouraged-children-twice-wed-father-four-backs-scrapping-two-child-benefit-cap-tax-breaks-married-couples.html | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When he says British births? What other details did he add ? Article here https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13530147/Nigel-Farage-says-people-encouraged-children-twice-wed-father-four-backs-scrapping-two-child-benefit-cap-tax-breaks-married-couples.html"  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits "I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently Farage thinks we should. My immediate reaction was yes, however wouldn't this increase demands on NHS etc the same way that migration does ? So what problem is it solving ? " do you invite a reform canvasser in to increase the birth rate? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
"Cool, so loads more kids and no one to keep them healthy, educate them, and provide places for them to play. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently Farage thinks we should. My immediate reaction was yes, however wouldn't this increase demands on NHS etc the same way that migration does ? So what problem is it solving ? " not really the same way British ppl have more likely to have paid NI and tax for years than migrants | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently Farage thinks we should. My immediate reaction was yes, however wouldn't this increase demands on NHS etc the same way that migration does ? So what problem is it solving ? " Over 10 million people are currently aged 65 and over, making up 18% of the population. Once over the age of retirement, chances are that many will not be adding any wealth back into the system. Someone will eventually have to pay for a pension system to support that. We need more taxpayers in the working age bracket. Simply put: We can't have adequate Health and Social Care without people to pay for it. It may well work out one day that the great Bevin experiment, was a failed experiment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When he says British births? What other details did he add ? I could only find this in the Daily Mail. I assume there's not much more detail, and the implication is he wants more white people and less brown people, without actually saying that. " And yet those native to this part of the world, are brown. Think cheddar man  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently Farage thinks we should. My immediate reaction was yes, however wouldn't this increase demands on NHS etc the same way that migration does ? So what problem is it solving ? not really the same way British ppl have more likely to have paid NI and tax for years than migrants " In the same way that those who have worked for years have paid more than those just entering the workplace
Tbh if someone is working and contributing in taxation etc it's all good surely.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently Farage thinks we should. My immediate reaction was yes, however wouldn't this increase demands on NHS etc the same way that migration does ? So what problem is it solving ? Over 10 million people are currently aged 65 and over, making up 18% of the population. Once over the age of retirement, chances are that many will not be adding any wealth back into the system. Someone will eventually have to pay for a pension system to support that. We need more taxpayers in the working age bracket. Simply put: We can't have adequate Health and Social Care without people to pay for it. It may well work out one day that the great Bevin experiment, was a failed experiment." Brexit is a huge failure given to us by lord Cameron and lying Boris. 18% maybe retired but that in no way means they are not contributing to the wealth of this fucked up country. They are spending their final salary pensions and looking after the grandkids to allow the parents to go to work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Immigrants are less likely to claim benefits, use the NHS, or live in social housing. Surely they are the solution to the pension problem?" It is not an ideal situation, it does nothing to maintain social stability through population or services and does not build on cultural continuity, it will simply die away. There have been many studies in this space with the total fertility rate of around 2.1 children per female being considered the ideal replacement level in developed countries. A TFR of 2.1 ensures that the population size remains stable without growing or shrinking. The UK is at 1.6 and heading for problems if not addressed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Immigrants are less likely to claim benefits, use the NHS, or live in social housing. Surely they are the solution to the pension problem?" Yes very likely, but let's get a grip on overall numbers and some selection criteria for who we choose. Perfectly reasonable, no? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When he says British births? What other details did he add ? I could only find this in the Daily Mail. I assume there's not much more detail, and the implication is he wants more white people and less brown people, without actually saying that. And yet those native to this part of the world, are brown. Think cheddar man "Are you saying that being prejudice against someone based on their ethnicity, is illogical? Surely not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently Farage thinks we should. My immediate reaction was yes, however wouldn't this increase demands on NHS etc the same way that migration does ? So what problem is it solving ? not really the same way British ppl have more likely to have paid NI and tax for years than migrants In the same way that those who have worked for years have paid more than those just entering the workplace
Tbh if someone is working and contributing in taxation etc it's all good surely.."but kids suck out a load of taxws before they even get to paying tax. I'd imagine the payback on migrants is quicker, especially as they earn the same on average. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Immigrants are less likely to claim benefits, use the NHS, or live in social housing. Surely they are the solution to the pension problem? It is not an ideal situation, it does nothing to maintain social stability through population or services and does not build on cultural continuity, it will simply die away. There have been many studies in this space with the total fertility rate of around 2.1 children per female being considered the ideal replacement level in developed countries. A TFR of 2.1 ensures that the population size remains stable without growing or shrinking. The UK is at 1.6 and heading for problems if not addressed." it is. But given longevity 2.1 probably sees population increase. And given that older people tend to be more reliant on tax spend (state pension plus much higher care costs) the nations p&l skews. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently Farage thinks we should. My immediate reaction was yes, however wouldn't this increase demands on NHS etc the same way that migration does ? So what problem is it solving ? not really the same way British ppl have more likely to have paid NI and tax for years than migrants In the same way that those who have worked for years have paid more than those just entering the workplace
Tbh if someone is working and contributing in taxation etc it's all good surely..but kids suck out a load of taxws before they even get to paying tax. I'd imagine the payback on migrants is quicker, especially as they earn the same on average.
"Good point.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
Cool, so loads more kids and no one to keep them healthy, educate them, and provide places for them to play."Labour’s policy is to reduce immigration. Soon to be government policy. Bunch of racists running the country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Immigrants are less likely to claim benefits, use the NHS, or live in social housing. Surely they are the solution to the pension problem?" Only if when they themselves get to pension age it is denied or they go back to their homeland. Otherwise you will need several times more immigrants to fund them. Ponzi scheme as others mention | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
"Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Immigrants are less likely to claim benefits, use the NHS, or live in social housing. Surely they are the solution to the pension problem? It is not an ideal situation, it does nothing to maintain social stability through population or services and does not build on cultural continuity, it will simply die away. There have been many studies in this space with the total fertility rate of around 2.1 children per female being considered the ideal replacement level in developed countries. A TFR of 2.1 ensures that the population size remains stable without growing or shrinking. The UK is at 1.6 and heading for problems if not addressed.it is. But given longevity 2.1 probably sees population increase. And given that older people tend to be more reliant on tax spend (state pension plus much higher care costs) the nations p&l skews. " What you have not took into consideration is the benefits a native family brings to society as a whole, as well as the longterm contributions being provided culturally. Quick wins do not build a strong society, and I think that is part of the issue with low total fertility rates, the uncertainty in so many aspects of every day life produces less children. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Immigrants are less likely to claim benefits, use the NHS, or live in social housing. Surely they are the solution to the pension problem? It is not an ideal situation, it does nothing to maintain social stability through population or services and does not build on cultural continuity, it will simply die away. There have been many studies in this space with the total fertility rate of around 2.1 children per female being considered the ideal replacement level in developed countries. A TFR of 2.1 ensures that the population size remains stable without growing or shrinking. The UK is at 1.6 and heading for problems if not addressed.it is. But given longevity 2.1 probably sees population increase. And given that older people tend to be more reliant on tax spend (state pension plus much higher care costs) the nations p&l skews. What you have not took into consideration is the benefits a native family brings to society as a whole, as well as the longterm contributions being provided culturally. Quick wins do not build a strong society, and I think that is part of the issue with low total fertility rates, the uncertainty in so many aspects of every day life produces less children. " I'm only responding to points 
It's not even clear why Farage is suggesting this.
What do you see as the benefits of a native family ?
(I agree wholeheartedly with your point in uncertainty btw. I'd add in the expense/opportunity cosr too as we have moved to needing two incomes to get by) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You mean the country's not full after all?" When we have bunk beds on hospital wards, then you know we're bursting at the seams  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?"Only the consultants who got the biggest uplift. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When he says British births? What other details did he add ? I could only find this in the Daily Mail. I assume there's not much more detail, and the implication is he wants more white people and less brown people, without actually saying that. " I think so. However the birth rate amongst white people in the west is falling. This is the real reason behind the anti-abortion movement in the US. They could care less about babies, but it's more about preserving their superiority issues. Nothing wrong in wanting to increase it but be honest about why. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I doubt few people will get pregnant for a child, based on his pronouncements. Sure, we're an aging culture but “””people need to have affordable homes, security of employment and prosperous income levels””” I've heard Farage spouting about immigration but don't know their broader coated _anifesto promises. " Farage’s brexit promised all these things FARAGE claims he is "100 percent confident" Brexit is the "the path to a more prosperous Britain" as he claims no deal tariffs would leave the UK up to £9billion better off. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently Farage thinks we should. My immediate reaction was yes, however wouldn't this increase demands on NHS etc the same way that migration does ? So what problem is it solving ? " Not global warming, that's for sure! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
"We'd favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid 56 yr old private sector workers, or other cuts to private sector subsidies generally. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
We'd favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid 56 yr old private sector workers, or other cuts to private sector subsidies generally."I’m sure you will get your way, in the short term. Economic Boom Incoming! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
We'd favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid 56 yr old private sector workers, or other cuts to private sector subsidies generally.
I’m sure you will get your way, in the short term.
Economic Boom Incoming!"You missed my question
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
We'd favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid 56 yr old private sector workers, or other cuts to private sector subsidies generally.
I’m sure you will get your way, in the short term.
Economic Boom Incoming!
You missed my question
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
"Based on productivity, they are generally overpaid when compared to anyone doing anything in the private sector. Excluding the likes of water company bosses, who just get paid obscene amounts to deceive the regulator. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
We'd favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid 56 yr old private sector workers, or other cuts to private sector subsidies generally.
I’m sure you will get your way, in the short term.
Economic Boom Incoming!
You missed my question
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
Based on productivity, they are generally overpaid when compared to anyone doing anything in the private sector.
Excluding the likes of water company bosses, who just get paid obscene amounts to deceive the regulator."Can you provide evidence to support that claim? Remember it needs to be comparable, ie a like-for-like job and similar or the same activities. You can’t compare someone working on a production line producing x number of widgets a day to a social worker handling highly complex human cases unless you are telling the latter “you can only spend 10 minutes per case” which will result in serious mistakes with disastrous consequences for actual people (and I bet you’d be first in line to criticise)! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
We'd favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid 56 yr old private sector workers, or other cuts to private sector subsidies generally.
I’m sure you will get your way, in the short term.
Economic Boom Incoming!
You missed my question
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
"I feel we may be heading for a great deal of public sector sobbing over the next few years. “I voted Labour because I thought I would get a 50% pay rise and I could work four days a week for five days’ pay and spend my days droning on about austerity and going to diversity and well being meetings. But now I’ve been made redundant because they say the government has gone bust and I can’t get a job anywhere because these companies expect me to turn up every day and do stuff before they will give me a pay check”! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When he says British births? What other details did he add ? I could only find this in the Daily Mail. I assume there's not much more detail, and the implication is he wants more white people and less brown people, without actually saying that. I think so. However the birth rate amongst white people in the west is falling. This is the real reason behind the anti-abortion movement in the US. They could care less about babies, but it's more about preserving their superiority issues. Nothing wrong in wanting to increase it but be honest about why. " So are the US only anti abortion for white babies, is that what you are saying? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
We'd favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid 56 yr old private sector workers, or other cuts to private sector subsidies generally.
I’m sure you will get your way, in the short term.
Economic Boom Incoming!
You missed my question
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
I feel we may be heading for a great deal of public sector sobbing over the next few years.
“I voted Labour because I thought I would get a 50% pay rise and I could work four days a week for five days’ pay and spend my days droning on about austerity and going to diversity and well being meetings. But now I’ve been made redundant because they say the government has gone bust and I can’t get a job anywhere because these companies expect me to turn up every day and do stuff before they will give me a pay check”!"I doubt very much anyone thinks the way you have said? If anything it will be more about having a govt that stops feeding the anti public sector trolls by joining in on the attacks. Simply knowing your boss thinks well of you would be an improvement for many. You still didn’t actually answer the question though… Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
We'd favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid 56 yr old private sector workers, or other cuts to private sector subsidies generally.
I’m sure you will get your way, in the short term.
Economic Boom Incoming!
You missed my question
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
I feel we may be heading for a great deal of public sector sobbing over the next few years.
“I voted Labour because I thought I would get a 50% pay rise and I could work four days a week for five days’ pay and spend my days droning on about austerity and going to diversity and well being meetings. But now I’ve been made redundant because they say the government has gone bust and I can’t get a job anywhere because these companies expect me to turn up every day and do stuff before they will give me a pay check”!
I doubt very much anyone thinks the way you have said? If anything it will be more about having a govt that stops feeding the anti public sector trolls by joining in on the attacks. Simply knowing your boss thinks well of you would be an improvement for many.
You still didn’t actually answer the question though…
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?"The BMA are hoping for something close to what was written, when labour take power. It will be interesting to see how the BMA and labour resolve the strikes, it will be seen as a major win if they’re called off and both sides need it, but at what cost? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When he says British births? What other details did he add ? I could only find this in the Daily Mail. I assume there's not much more detail, and the implication is he wants more white people and less brown people, without actually saying that. I think so. However the birth rate amongst white people in the west is falling. This is the real reason behind the anti-abortion movement in the US. They could care less about babies, but it's more about preserving their superiority issues. Nothing wrong in wanting to increase it but be honest about why. So are the US only anti abortion for white babies, is that what you are saying? Mrs x" Interestingly, in the US, the abortion rate among black women is much much higher than white women. So anti-abortion activists are really only supporting having more babies from black women, whether they know it or not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
We'd favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid 56 yr old private sector workers, or other cuts to private sector subsidies generally.
I’m sure you will get your way, in the short term.
Economic Boom Incoming!
You missed my question
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
Based on productivity, they are generally overpaid when compared to anyone doing anything in the private sector.
Excluding the likes of water company bosses, who just get paid obscene amounts to deceive the regulator."Are they? Do you have any evidence to back that up? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
We'd favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid 56 yr old private sector workers, or other cuts to private sector subsidies generally.
I’m sure you will get your way, in the short term.
Economic Boom Incoming!
You missed my question
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
I feel we may be heading for a great deal of public sector sobbing over the next few years.
“I voted Labour because I thought I would get a 50% pay rise and I could work four days a week for five days’ pay and spend my days droning on about austerity and going to diversity and well being meetings. But now I’ve been made redundant because they say the government has gone bust and I can’t get a job anywhere because these companies expect me to turn up every day and do stuff before they will give me a pay check”!
I doubt very much anyone thinks the way you have said? If anything it will be more about having a govt that stops feeding the anti public sector trolls by joining in on the attacks. Simply knowing your boss thinks well of you would be an improvement for many.
You still didn’t actually answer the question though…
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
The BMA are hoping for something close to what was written, when labour take power.
It will be interesting to see how the BMA and labour resolve the strikes, it will be seen as a major win if they’re called off and both sides need it, but at what cost?"The strikes have cost the government far more than if they had given the junior doctors pay restoration, so it will save money. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
Cool, so loads more kids and no one to keep them healthy, educate them, and provide places for them to play.
Labour’s policy is to reduce immigration. Soon to be government policy.
Bunch of racists running the country."Reducing immigration makes you a racist ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
Cool, so loads more kids and no one to keep them healthy, educate them, and provide places for them to play.
Labour’s policy is to reduce immigration. Soon to be government policy.
Bunch of racists running the country.
Reducing immigration makes you a racist ? "yep it certainly does to the loonie lefties | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The strikes have cost the government far more than if they had given the junior doctors pay restoration, so it will save money." How so? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
Cool, so loads more kids and no one to keep them healthy, educate them, and provide places for them to play.
Labour’s policy is to reduce immigration. Soon to be government policy.
Bunch of racists running the country.
Reducing immigration makes you a racist ? yep it certainly does to the loonie lefties "is buck a lefty ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why encourage more births when we can invite more Indian doctors, scientists, teachers and IT workers. They are the most smartest people on the planet unlike other migrants. In the year ending March 2024, there were 160,676 working visas granted for workers from India, the most of any nationality. "It doesn't matter where they come from, encouraging more doctors, scientists, teachers and IT workers etc will benefit the country | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
We'd favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid 56 yr old private sector workers, or other cuts to private sector subsidies generally.
I’m sure you will get your way, in the short term.
Economic Boom Incoming!
You missed my question
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
I feel we may be heading for a great deal of public sector sobbing over the next few years.
“I voted Labour because I thought I would get a 50% pay rise and I could work four days a week for five days’ pay and spend my days droning on about austerity and going to diversity and well being meetings. But now I’ve been made redundant because they say the government has gone bust and I can’t get a job anywhere because these companies expect me to turn up every day and do stuff before they will give me a pay check”!
I doubt very much anyone thinks the way you have said? If anything it will be more about having a govt that stops feeding the anti public sector trolls by joining in on the attacks. Simply knowing your boss thinks well of you would be an improvement for many.
You still didn’t actually answer the question though…
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
The BMA are hoping for something close to what was written, when labour take power.
It will be interesting to see how the BMA and labour resolve the strikes, it will be seen as a major win if they’re called off and both sides need it, but at what cost?
The strikes have cost the government far more than if they had given the junior doctors pay restoration, so it will save money."“Pay restoration” lol. Maybe the government should step in and do that for everyone in the country. Sounds pretty simple. Anyone in the public sector downs tools for long enough until the point at which it would be cheaper for taxpayers to simply give them more cash. So much for ethics and public service. Me me me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The strikes have cost the government far more than if they had given the junior doctors pay restoration, so it will save money. How so?" The junior doctors strike has cost approximately £3 Billion so far, the cost of full pay restoration would be £1 billion, according to the BMA, chances are they won’t get the full amount, even under a Labour government. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
We'd favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid 56 yr old private sector workers, or other cuts to private sector subsidies generally.
I’m sure you will get your way, in the short term.
Economic Boom Incoming!
You missed my question
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
I feel we may be heading for a great deal of public sector sobbing over the next few years.
“I voted Labour because I thought I would get a 50% pay rise and I could work four days a week for five days’ pay and spend my days droning on about austerity and going to diversity and well being meetings. But now I’ve been made redundant because they say the government has gone bust and I can’t get a job anywhere because these companies expect me to turn up every day and do stuff before they will give me a pay check”!
I doubt very much anyone thinks the way you have said? If anything it will be more about having a govt that stops feeding the anti public sector trolls by joining in on the attacks. Simply knowing your boss thinks well of you would be an improvement for many.
You still didn’t actually answer the question though…
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
The BMA are hoping for something close to what was written, when labour take power.
It will be interesting to see how the BMA and labour resolve the strikes, it will be seen as a major win if they’re called off and both sides need it, but at what cost?
The strikes have cost the government far more than if they had given the junior doctors pay restoration, so it will save money.
“Pay restoration” lol. Maybe the government should step in and do that for everyone in the country.
Sounds pretty simple. Anyone in the public sector downs tools for long enough until the point at which it would be cheaper for taxpayers to simply give them more cash.
So much for ethics and public service. Me me me."Aren’t unions great! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
We'd favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid 56 yr old private sector workers, or other cuts to private sector subsidies generally.
I’m sure you will get your way, in the short term.
Economic Boom Incoming!
You missed my question
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
I feel we may be heading for a great deal of public sector sobbing over the next few years.
“I voted Labour because I thought I would get a 50% pay rise and I could work four days a week for five days’ pay and spend my days droning on about austerity and going to diversity and well being meetings. But now I’ve been made redundant because they say the government has gone bust and I can’t get a job anywhere because these companies expect me to turn up every day and do stuff before they will give me a pay check”!
I doubt very much anyone thinks the way you have said? If anything it will be more about having a govt that stops feeding the anti public sector trolls by joining in on the attacks. Simply knowing your boss thinks well of you would be an improvement for many.
You still didn’t actually answer the question though…
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
The BMA are hoping for something close to what was written, when labour take power.
It will be interesting to see how the BMA and labour resolve the strikes, it will be seen as a major win if they’re called off and both sides need it, but at what cost?
The strikes have cost the government far more than if they had given the junior doctors pay restoration, so it will save money.
“Pay restoration” lol. Maybe the government should step in and do that for everyone in the country.
Sounds pretty simple. Anyone in the public sector downs tools for long enough until the point at which it would be cheaper for taxpayers to simply give them more cash.
So much for ethics and public service. Me me me."public servants should accept real terms pay cuts because us paying more tax would result in reductions in our income. Sounds a bit me me me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If we need a bigger population it makes sense to incurarrage female migration probably to the point there are 3 females to every man. LOL " Well considering the amount of Men to Women arriving they're going to need bigger boats | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If we need a bigger population it makes sense to incurarrage female migration probably to the point there are 3 females to every man. LOL " I find some selfishness in your altruism | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The strikes have cost the government far more than if they had given the junior doctors pay restoration, so it will save money. How so? The junior doctors strike has cost approximately £3 Billion so far, the cost of full pay restoration would be £1 billion, according to the BMA, chances are they won’t get the full amount, even under a Labour government." not trying to be inflammatory with this , genuinely asking… how has it cost £3bn? Where did that £3bn go? And what is the time period of the cost of £1bn, will that be per year in future as I don’t think the strikes were about a one off bonus? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
We'd favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid 56 yr old private sector workers, or other cuts to private sector subsidies generally.
I’m sure you will get your way, in the short term.
Economic Boom Incoming!
You missed my question
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
Based on productivity, they are generally overpaid when compared to anyone doing anything in the private sector.
Excluding the likes of water company bosses, who just get paid obscene amounts to deceive the regulator.
Can you provide evidence to support that claim? Remember it needs to be comparable, ie a like-for-like job and similar or the same activities.
You can’t compare someone working on a production line producing x number of widgets a day to a social worker handling highly complex human cases unless you are telling the latter “you can only spend 10 minutes per case” which will result in serious mistakes with disastrous consequences for actual people (and I bet you’d be first in line to criticise)!
"Based on experience of dealing with the public sector - everything is slow and inefficient. Whether that is the council or the NHS. No joined up thinking, no use of technology, too much wokie and virtue signalling rubbish. Not dealt with them directly but government and civil service appears to be the same, as if they are trying to run through treacle. Can't comment on social workers as I have no experience of them and don't really know what they do, or why they are necessary. Turning the question around, where is the public sector really effective and efficient? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
We'd favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid 56 yr old private sector workers, or other cuts to private sector subsidies generally.
I’m sure you will get your way, in the short term.
Economic Boom Incoming!
You missed my question
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
Based on productivity, they are generally overpaid when compared to anyone doing anything in the private sector.
Excluding the likes of water company bosses, who just get paid obscene amounts to deceive the regulator.
Can you provide evidence to support that claim? Remember it needs to be comparable, ie a like-for-like job and similar or the same activities.
You can’t compare someone working on a production line producing x number of widgets a day to a social worker handling highly complex human cases unless you are telling the latter “you can only spend 10 minutes per case” which will result in serious mistakes with disastrous consequences for actual people (and I bet you’d be first in line to criticise)!
Based on experience of dealing with the public sector - everything is slow and inefficient. Whether that is the council or the NHS. No joined up thinking, no use of technology, too much wokie and virtue signalling rubbish. Not dealt with them directly but government and civil service appears to be the same, as if they are trying to run through treacle.
Can't comment on social workers as I have no experience of them and don't really know what they do, or why they are necessary.
Turning the question around, where is the public sector really effective and efficient?
"I don’t know as I prefer to comment on things I have knowledge of rather than simply assumptions or opinions. Re Civil Service you say no dealings but appears the same. Do you don’t know! That’s ok but sweeping statements aren’t. And on my original point, most of what the public sector does is not comparable to private sector. The very nature of the work is different. I agree with lack of joined up or integrated approach. But whose fault is that? Not the workers I can tell you! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
We'd favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid 56 yr old private sector workers, or other cuts to private sector subsidies generally.
I’m sure you will get your way, in the short term.
Economic Boom Incoming!
You missed my question
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
Based on productivity, they are generally overpaid when compared to anyone doing anything in the private sector.
Excluding the likes of water company bosses, who just get paid obscene amounts to deceive the regulator.
Can you provide evidence to support that claim? Remember it needs to be comparable, ie a like-for-like job and similar or the same activities.
You can’t compare someone working on a production line producing x number of widgets a day to a social worker handling highly complex human cases unless you are telling the latter “you can only spend 10 minutes per case” which will result in serious mistakes with disastrous consequences for actual people (and I bet you’d be first in line to criticise)!
Based on experience of dealing with the public sector - everything is slow and inefficient. Whether that is the council or the NHS. No joined up thinking, no use of technology, too much wokie and virtue signalling rubbish. Not dealt with them directly but government and civil service appears to be the same, as if they are trying to run through treacle.
Can't comment on social workers as I have no experience of them and don't really know what they do, or why they are necessary.
Turning the question around, where is the public sector really effective and efficient?
"So you don’t have any evidence then, just an opinion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently Farage thinks we should. My immediate reaction was yes, however wouldn't this increase demands on NHS etc the same way that migration does ? So what problem is it solving ? " There are two ways you could look at this 1) you could give farage the benefit of the doubt and say he said it as you need aim effect will need more people being born to cover potentially paying for things like pensions…… 2) you could say farage is dog whistling again… specifically saying British children is code for white, because the birth rate of certain ethnic populations is much higher than that of the indigenous population Past history…. Hmmmmm , which should I choose? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently Farage thinks we should. My immediate reaction was yes, however wouldn't this increase demands on NHS etc the same way that migration does ? So what problem is it solving ? There are two ways you could look at this 1) you could give farage the benefit of the doubt and say he said it as you need aim effect will need more people being born to cover potentially paying for things like pensions…… 2) you could say farage is dog whistling again… specifically saying British children is code for white, because the birth rate of certain ethnic populations is much higher than that of the indigenous population Past history…. Hmmmmm , which should I choose? " but if you take 1) then why be so anti migration... As it's "needed" for the same reasons... And now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
We'd favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid 56 yr old private sector workers, or other cuts to private sector subsidies generally.
I’m sure you will get your way, in the short term.
Economic Boom Incoming!
You missed my question
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
Based on productivity, they are generally overpaid when compared to anyone doing anything in the private sector.
Excluding the likes of water company bosses, who just get paid obscene amounts to deceive the regulator.
Can you provide evidence to support that claim? Remember it needs to be comparable, ie a like-for-like job and similar or the same activities.
You can’t compare someone working on a production line producing x number of widgets a day to a social worker handling highly complex human cases unless you are telling the latter “you can only spend 10 minutes per case” which will result in serious mistakes with disastrous consequences for actual people (and I bet you’d be first in line to criticise)!
Based on experience of dealing with the public sector - everything is slow and inefficient. Whether that is the council or the NHS. No joined up thinking, no use of technology, too much wokie and virtue signalling rubbish. Not dealt with them directly but government and civil service appears to be the same, as if they are trying to run through treacle.
Can't comment on social workers as I have no experience of them and don't really know what they do, or why they are necessary.
Turning the question around, where is the public sector really effective and efficient?
I don’t know as I prefer to comment on things I have knowledge of rather than simply assumptions or opinions. Re Civil Service you say no dealings but appears the same. Do you don’t know! That’s ok but sweeping statements aren’t. And on my original point, most of what the public sector does is not comparable to private sector. The very nature of the work is different.
I agree with lack of joined up or integrated approach. But whose fault is that? Not the workers I can tell you!"Experience of NHS, council, DVLA, Passport Office, HMRC. All slow and inefficient, particularly when a person has to deal with the query or issue. That is enough evidence. As for the rest, from the outside it all appears to be the same mire. How can that not be some workers' fault? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We need to as birth rates are below 2.0 per couple at the mo. In 50 years workforce will be too small to support society and an aged population. Best way to do it is childcare help so parents can work without losing a fortune. Maybe have a portion of childcare as tax deductable or a UBI but regulate chilcare costs to stop them inflating. At the moment a lot of chilcare is poor quality and very expensive yet the sector is badly paid - something not adding up. Increase public sector pay to force private sector pay up for middle earners and make it easier to have a 2nd or 3rd child." Best way is to remove the need for both parents to work. It is driven by the extortionate house prices. A correction to more sensible levels would be painful in the short and medium terms but beneficial in the long term. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We need to as birth rates are below 2.0 per couple at the mo. In 50 years workforce will be too small to support society and an aged population. Best way to do it is childcare help so parents can work without losing a fortune. Maybe have a portion of childcare as tax deductable or a UBI but regulate chilcare costs to stop them inflating. At the moment a lot of chilcare is poor quality and very expensive yet the sector is badly paid - something not adding up. Increase public sector pay to force private sector pay up for middle earners and make it easier to have a 2nd or 3rd child. Best way is to remove the need for both parents to work. It is driven by the extortionate house prices. A correction to more sensible levels would be painful in the short and medium terms but beneficial in the long term." It's wrong to attribute declining birth rates to money. It's been historically and statistically shown that rich people have less children than poor and rich countries have less number of children than poor countries. The only odd exception is when people are religious. Scandinavian countries have fantastic childcare and their birth rates are lower than UK. Declining birth rates have nothing to do with lack of money. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently Farage thinks we should. My immediate reaction was yes, however wouldn't this increase demands on NHS etc the same way that migration does ? So what problem is it solving ? " The low birth rate affecting the financial situation is not new and been mentioned on here several times. Making an attempt to rectify that seems sensible enough to me. I don't get the racist angle though unless he said white British people only should be encouraged to have more children. Obviously it's a long term thing but often worthwhile solutions are | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
We'd favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid 56 yr old private sector workers, or other cuts to private sector subsidies generally.
I’m sure you will get your way, in the short term.
Economic Boom Incoming!
You missed my question
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
I feel we may be heading for a great deal of public sector sobbing over the next few years.
“I voted Labour because I thought I would get a 50% pay rise and I could work four days a week for five days’ pay and spend my days droning on about austerity and going to diversity and well being meetings. But now I’ve been made redundant because they say the government has gone bust and I can’t get a job anywhere because these companies expect me to turn up every day and do stuff before they will give me a pay check”!
I doubt very much anyone thinks the way you have said? If anything it will be more about having a govt that stops feeding the anti public sector trolls by joining in on the attacks. Simply knowing your boss thinks well of you would be an improvement for many.
You still didn’t actually answer the question though…
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
The BMA are hoping for something close to what was written, when labour take power.
It will be interesting to see how the BMA and labour resolve the strikes, it will be seen as a major win if they’re called off and both sides need it, but at what cost?"You need to chat to your accountant (or maths teacher if still alive) as 35% is not something close to 50%! Even so, Starmer made it clear they will actually negotiate but that 35% is completely unrealistic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently Farage thinks we should. My immediate reaction was yes, however wouldn't this increase demands on NHS etc the same way that migration does ? So what problem is it solving ? The low birth rate affecting the financial situation is not new and been mentioned on here several times. Making an attempt to rectify that seems sensible enough to me. I don't get the racist angle though unless he said white British people only should be encouraged to have more children. Obviously it's a long term thing but often worthwhile solutions are" I don't understand why (from a finance pov) why kids are the answer and migrants are. Especially when they put more pressure on finances in the short term. I'm not calling him racist. But I don't see that his thinking is joined up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
We'd favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid 56 yr old private sector workers, or other cuts to private sector subsidies generally.
I’m sure you will get your way, in the short term.
Economic Boom Incoming!
You missed my question
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
Based on productivity, they are generally overpaid when compared to anyone doing anything in the private sector.
Excluding the likes of water company bosses, who just get paid obscene amounts to deceive the regulator.
Can you provide evidence to support that claim? Remember it needs to be comparable, ie a like-for-like job and similar or the same activities.
You can’t compare someone working on a production line producing x number of widgets a day to a social worker handling highly complex human cases unless you are telling the latter “you can only spend 10 minutes per case” which will result in serious mistakes with disastrous consequences for actual people (and I bet you’d be first in line to criticise)!
Based on experience of dealing with the public sector - everything is slow and inefficient. Whether that is the council or the NHS. No joined up thinking, no use of technology, too much wokie and virtue signalling rubbish. Not dealt with them directly but government and civil service appears to be the same, as if they are trying to run through treacle.
Can't comment on social workers as I have no experience of them and don't really know what they do, or why they are necessary.
Turning the question around, where is the public sector really effective and efficient?
I don’t know as I prefer to comment on things I have knowledge of rather than simply assumptions or opinions. Re Civil Service you say no dealings but appears the same. Do you don’t know! That’s ok but sweeping statements aren’t. And on my original point, most of what the public sector does is not comparable to private sector. The very nature of the work is different.
I agree with lack of joined up or integrated approach. But whose fault is that? Not the workers I can tell you!
Experience of NHS, council, DVLA, Passport Office, HMRC.
All slow and inefficient, particularly when a person has to deal with the query or issue.
That is enough evidence.
As for the rest, from the outside it all appears to be the same mire.
How can that not be some workers' fault?"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
We'd favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid 56 yr old private sector workers, or other cuts to private sector subsidies generally.
I’m sure you will get your way, in the short term.
Economic Boom Incoming!
You missed my question
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
Based on productivity, they are generally overpaid when compared to anyone doing anything in the private sector.
Excluding the likes of water company bosses, who just get paid obscene amounts to deceive the regulator.
Can you provide evidence to support that claim? Remember it needs to be comparable, ie a like-for-like job and similar or the same activities.
You can’t compare someone working on a production line producing x number of widgets a day to a social worker handling highly complex human cases unless you are telling the latter “you can only spend 10 minutes per case” which will result in serious mistakes with disastrous consequences for actual people (and I bet you’d be first in line to criticise)!
Based on experience of dealing with the public sector - everything is slow and inefficient. Whether that is the council or the NHS. No joined up thinking, no use of technology, too much wokie and virtue signalling rubbish. Not dealt with them directly but government and civil service appears to be the same, as if they are trying to run through treacle.
Can't comment on social workers as I have no experience of them and don't really know what they do, or why they are necessary.
Turning the question around, where is the public sector really effective and efficient?
I don’t know as I prefer to comment on things I have knowledge of rather than simply assumptions or opinions. Re Civil Service you say no dealings but appears the same. Do you don’t know! That’s ok but sweeping statements aren’t. And on my original point, most of what the public sector does is not comparable to private sector. The very nature of the work is different.
I agree with lack of joined up or integrated approach. But whose fault is that? Not the workers I can tell you!
Experience of NHS, council, DVLA, Passport Office, HMRC.
All slow and inefficient, particularly when a person has to deal with the query or issue.
That is enough evidence.
As for the rest, from the outside it all appears to be the same mire.
How can that not be some workers' fault?
It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote."all depends on whom is classed as a worker. Those on the front line are constrained by systems, and training, and probably perverse incentive schemes. (Same as private) In some places even the rules. (Hello, DWP). They are often dealing with more complex issues than we tend to deal with when it comes to the private sector. But anyone buying a house has probably seen the challenges when private companies have to work together. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
We'd favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid 56 yr old private sector workers, or other cuts to private sector subsidies generally.
I’m sure you will get your way, in the short term.
Economic Boom Incoming!
You missed my question
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
I feel we may be heading for a great deal of public sector sobbing over the next few years.
“I voted Labour because I thought I would get a 50% pay rise and I could work four days a week for five days’ pay and spend my days droning on about austerity and going to diversity and well being meetings. But now I’ve been made redundant because they say the government has gone bust and I can’t get a job anywhere because these companies expect me to turn up every day and do stuff before they will give me a pay check”!
I doubt very much anyone thinks the way you have said? If anything it will be more about having a govt that stops feeding the anti public sector trolls by joining in on the attacks. Simply knowing your boss thinks well of you would be an improvement for many.
You still didn’t actually answer the question though…
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
The BMA are hoping for something close to what was written, when labour take power.
It will be interesting to see how the BMA and labour resolve the strikes, it will be seen as a major win if they’re called off and both sides need it, but at what cost?
You need to chat to your accountant (or maths teacher if still alive) as 35% is not something close to 50%! Even so, Starmer made it clear they will actually negotiate but that 35% is completely unrealistic. "It is closer to 50% than maybe 6% - 15%.... 35% is a piss take that has cost dearly on the people who need services and future waiting lists, the BMA should be ashamed of themselves for being so out of touch. It is not as though junior doctors were hoodwinked into the job and not given any idea of the pay structure is it? Comments that unions are great, well that is not how I see it for all of the above. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
We'd favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid 56 yr old private sector workers, or other cuts to private sector subsidies generally.
I’m sure you will get your way, in the short term.
Economic Boom Incoming!
You missed my question
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
Based on productivity, they are generally overpaid when compared to anyone doing anything in the private sector.
Excluding the likes of water company bosses, who just get paid obscene amounts to deceive the regulator.
Can you provide evidence to support that claim? Remember it needs to be comparable, ie a like-for-like job and similar or the same activities.
You can’t compare someone working on a production line producing x number of widgets a day to a social worker handling highly complex human cases unless you are telling the latter “you can only spend 10 minutes per case” which will result in serious mistakes with disastrous consequences for actual people (and I bet you’d be first in line to criticise)!
Based on experience of dealing with the public sector - everything is slow and inefficient. Whether that is the council or the NHS. No joined up thinking, no use of technology, too much wokie and virtue signalling rubbish. Not dealt with them directly but government and civil service appears to be the same, as if they are trying to run through treacle.
Can't comment on social workers as I have no experience of them and don't really know what they do, or why they are necessary.
Turning the question around, where is the public sector really effective and efficient?
I don’t know as I prefer to comment on things I have knowledge of rather than simply assumptions or opinions. Re Civil Service you say no dealings but appears the same. Do you don’t know! That’s ok but sweeping statements aren’t. And on my original point, most of what the public sector does is not comparable to private sector. The very nature of the work is different.
I agree with lack of joined up or integrated approach. But whose fault is that? Not the workers I can tell you!
Experience of NHS, council, DVLA, Passport Office, HMRC.
All slow and inefficient, particularly when a person has to deal with the query or issue.
That is enough evidence.
As for the rest, from the outside it all appears to be the same mire.
How can that not be some workers' fault?
It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote."So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
We'd favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid 56 yr old private sector workers, or other cuts to private sector subsidies generally.
I’m sure you will get your way, in the short term.
Economic Boom Incoming!
You missed my question
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
Based on productivity, they are generally overpaid when compared to anyone doing anything in the private sector.
Excluding the likes of water company bosses, who just get paid obscene amounts to deceive the regulator.
Can you provide evidence to support that claim? Remember it needs to be comparable, ie a like-for-like job and similar or the same activities.
You can’t compare someone working on a production line producing x number of widgets a day to a social worker handling highly complex human cases unless you are telling the latter “you can only spend 10 minutes per case” which will result in serious mistakes with disastrous consequences for actual people (and I bet you’d be first in line to criticise)!
Based on experience of dealing with the public sector - everything is slow and inefficient. Whether that is the council or the NHS. No joined up thinking, no use of technology, too much wokie and virtue signalling rubbish. Not dealt with them directly but government and civil service appears to be the same, as if they are trying to run through treacle.
Can't comment on social workers as I have no experience of them and don't really know what they do, or why they are necessary.
Turning the question around, where is the public sector really effective and efficient?
I don’t know as I prefer to comment on things I have knowledge of rather than simply assumptions or opinions. Re Civil Service you say no dealings but appears the same. Do you don’t know! That’s ok but sweeping statements aren’t. And on my original point, most of what the public sector does is not comparable to private sector. The very nature of the work is different.
I agree with lack of joined up or integrated approach. But whose fault is that? Not the workers I can tell you!
Experience of NHS, council, DVLA, Passport Office, HMRC.
All slow and inefficient, particularly when a person has to deal with the query or issue.
That is enough evidence.
As for the rest, from the outside it all appears to be the same mire.
How can that not be some workers' fault?
It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote.all depends on whom is classed as a worker.
Those on the front line are constrained by systems, and training, and probably perverse incentive schemes. (Same as private) In some places even the rules. (Hello, DWP).
They are often dealing with more complex issues than we tend to deal with when it comes to the private sector.
But anyone buying a house has probably seen the challenges when private companies have to work together. "Everyone is classed as a worker. Some may be constrained as you say but someone else has designed those systems, and allows them to continue. Those people will be or have been public sector workers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
We'd favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid 56 yr old private sector workers, or other cuts to private sector subsidies generally.
I’m sure you will get your way, in the short term.
Economic Boom Incoming!
You missed my question
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
I feel we may be heading for a great deal of public sector sobbing over the next few years.
“I voted Labour because I thought I would get a 50% pay rise and I could work four days a week for five days’ pay and spend my days droning on about austerity and going to diversity and well being meetings. But now I’ve been made redundant because they say the government has gone bust and I can’t get a job anywhere because these companies expect me to turn up every day and do stuff before they will give me a pay check”!
I doubt very much anyone thinks the way you have said? If anything it will be more about having a govt that stops feeding the anti public sector trolls by joining in on the attacks. Simply knowing your boss thinks well of you would be an improvement for many.
You still didn’t actually answer the question though…
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
The BMA are hoping for something close to what was written, when labour take power.
It will be interesting to see how the BMA and labour resolve the strikes, it will be seen as a major win if they’re called off and both sides need it, but at what cost?
You need to chat to your accountant (or maths teacher if still alive) as 35% is not something close to 50%! Even so, Starmer made it clear they will actually negotiate but that 35% is completely unrealistic.
It is closer to 50% than maybe 6% - 15%.... 35% is a piss take that has cost dearly on the people who need services and future waiting lists, the BMA should be ashamed of themselves for being so out of touch.
It is not as though junior doctors were hoodwinked into the job and not given any idea of the pay structure is it?
Comments that unions are great, well that is not how I see it for all of the above. "BMA certainly came in with a very high starting point for negotiation but that is a strategy. You then negotiate and see what other factors alongside pay can be included. Labour won’t give them 35%. still isn’t “something close to 50%” if you think that can I buy your house? I’ll offer you “something close to the asking price!” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
We'd favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid 56 yr old private sector workers, or other cuts to private sector subsidies generally.
I’m sure you will get your way, in the short term.
Economic Boom Incoming!
You missed my question
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
I feel we may be heading for a great deal of public sector sobbing over the next few years.
“I voted Labour because I thought I would get a 50% pay rise and I could work four days a week for five days’ pay and spend my days droning on about austerity and going to diversity and well being meetings. But now I’ve been made redundant because they say the government has gone bust and I can’t get a job anywhere because these companies expect me to turn up every day and do stuff before they will give me a pay check”!
I doubt very much anyone thinks the way you have said? If anything it will be more about having a govt that stops feeding the anti public sector trolls by joining in on the attacks. Simply knowing your boss thinks well of you would be an improvement for many.
You still didn’t actually answer the question though…
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
The BMA are hoping for something close to what was written, when labour take power.
It will be interesting to see how the BMA and labour resolve the strikes, it will be seen as a major win if they’re called off and both sides need it, but at what cost?
You need to chat to your accountant (or maths teacher if still alive) as 35% is not something close to 50%! Even so, Starmer made it clear they will actually negotiate but that 35% is completely unrealistic.
It is closer to 50% than maybe 6% - 15%.... 35% is a piss take that has cost dearly on the people who need services and future waiting lists, the BMA should be ashamed of themselves for being so out of touch.
It is not as though junior doctors were hoodwinked into the job and not given any idea of the pay structure is it?
Comments that unions are great, well that is not how I see it for all of the above.
BMA certainly came in with a very high starting point for negotiation but that is a strategy. You then negotiate and see what other factors alongside pay can be included. Labour won’t give them 35%.
still isn’t “something close to 50%” if you think that can I buy your house? I’ll offer you “something close to the asking price!” "I think Labour will give them 35%. If they get a big majority there will be no reason not to. It will appease their union paymasters and there’s not going to be anyone around to object. It will be long forgotten by the next election. It will of course encourage further ludicrous public sector pay demands but my guess is that they will be incoming anyway. By the end of five years I also expect all public sector workers to be working four days a week too for five days’ pay. If Starmer objects to their pay demands he will just be seen as Continuity Tory and he is so weak he won’t have the stomach for any fight with the unions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
We'd favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid 56 yr old private sector workers, or other cuts to private sector subsidies generally.
I’m sure you will get your way, in the short term.
Economic Boom Incoming!
You missed my question
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
Based on productivity, they are generally overpaid when compared to anyone doing anything in the private sector.
Excluding the likes of water company bosses, who just get paid obscene amounts to deceive the regulator."Nurses? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why encourage more births when we can invite more Indian doctors, scientists, teachers and IT workers. They are the most smartest people on the planet unlike other migrants. In the year ending March 2024, there were 160,676 working visas granted for workers from India, the most of any nationality. "Really? Are you just basing that on numbers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently Farage thinks we should. My immediate reaction was yes, however wouldn't this increase demands on NHS etc the same way that migration does ? So what problem is it solving ? The low birth rate affecting the financial situation is not new and been mentioned on here several times. Making an attempt to rectify that seems sensible enough to me. I don't get the racist angle though unless he said white British people only should be encouraged to have more children. Obviously it's a long term thing but often worthwhile solutions areI don't understand why (from a finance pov) why kids are the answer and migrants are. Especially when they put more pressure on finances in the short term. I'm not calling him racist. But I don't see that his thinking is joined up. " The racist comment was me trying to fathom out some other comments on this thread that allude to it being racist. If it is immigrants or more children the goal us to have more young working people. One raises and educates children for the future who do not need integration as they already are. They are brought up in the local culture and have a permanent link to the UK. This is obviously longer term. The other is more of a quick fix and is basically poaching talent from other countries. For now we need both but if the birth rate does go up then we can cut down on the quick fixes. This is just personal opinion, not quoting or claiming any facts | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
We'd favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid 56 yr old private sector workers, or other cuts to private sector subsidies generally.
I’m sure you will get your way, in the short term.
Economic Boom Incoming!
You missed my question
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
I feel we may be heading for a great deal of public sector sobbing over the next few years.
“I voted Labour because I thought I would get a 50% pay rise and I could work four days a week for five days’ pay and spend my days droning on about austerity and going to diversity and well being meetings. But now I’ve been made redundant because they say the government has gone bust and I can’t get a job anywhere because these companies expect me to turn up every day and do stuff before they will give me a pay check”!
I doubt very much anyone thinks the way you have said? If anything it will be more about having a govt that stops feeding the anti public sector trolls by joining in on the attacks. Simply knowing your boss thinks well of you would be an improvement for many.
You still didn’t actually answer the question though…
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
The BMA are hoping for something close to what was written, when labour take power.
It will be interesting to see how the BMA and labour resolve the strikes, it will be seen as a major win if they’re called off and both sides need it, but at what cost?
You need to chat to your accountant (or maths teacher if still alive) as 35% is not something close to 50%! Even so, Starmer made it clear they will actually negotiate but that 35% is completely unrealistic. "This figure is not only restorative but in excess. Nurses were asking for a simply restorative figure and had never been on strike, whereas junior doctors have. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. Humans are amazing. Especially British ones. We should be encouraging a lot more of them, with big financial incentives. I hope by incentives you don’t mean benefits
I’d favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid public sector workers or other public sector cuts generally.
We'd favour tax cuts paid for by overpaid 56 yr old private sector workers, or other cuts to private sector subsidies generally.
I’m sure you will get your way, in the short term.
Economic Boom Incoming!
You missed my question
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
I feel we may be heading for a great deal of public sector sobbing over the next few years.
“I voted Labour because I thought I would get a 50% pay rise and I could work four days a week for five days’ pay and spend my days droning on about austerity and going to diversity and well being meetings. But now I’ve been made redundant because they say the government has gone bust and I can’t get a job anywhere because these companies expect me to turn up every day and do stuff before they will give me a pay check”!
I doubt very much anyone thinks the way you have said? If anything it will be more about having a govt that stops feeding the anti public sector trolls by joining in on the attacks. Simply knowing your boss thinks well of you would be an improvement for many.
You still didn’t actually answer the question though…
Why are public sector workers overpaid? Compared to who doing what?
The BMA are hoping for something close to what was written, when labour take power.
It will be interesting to see how the BMA and labour resolve the strikes, it will be seen as a major win if they’re called off and both sides need it, but at what cost?
You need to chat to your accountant (or maths teacher if still alive) as 35% is not something close to 50%! Even so, Starmer made it clear they will actually negotiate but that 35% is completely unrealistic.
It is closer to 50% than maybe 6% - 15%.... 35% is a piss take that has cost dearly on the people who need services and future waiting lists, the BMA should be ashamed of themselves for being so out of touch.
It is not as though junior doctors were hoodwinked into the job and not given any idea of the pay structure is it?
Comments that unions are great, well that is not how I see it for all of the above. "Junior doctors also have fantastic career progressions. I agree they should have a raise in excess to the consultants but as inferred in my last post (hopefully) restored since last strike but no, definitely not 35%. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency?" Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any." I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any." They are very efficient at not being collaborative with processes such as procurement or IT. They are also very efficient at squandering money. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust." All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££" What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust." Thanks, however I presume that is an example of private sector inefficiency rather than public sector efficiency. Your experience seems to be in the NHS so why is the NHS so inefficent? From IT to appointments to every process I have had to deal with. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost?" Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt." What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££" I see hybrid working, not as a Trust like HH, but particular services. You cannot have a business model with complex variables like A&E and trauma services (eg orthopedic trauma ops vs elective orthopedic ops). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. Thanks, however I presume that is an example of private sector inefficiency rather than public sector efficiency. Your experience seems to be in the NHS so why is the NHS so inefficent? From IT to appointments to every process I have had to deal with." As a patient my experience has been deplorable. As an HCP, not much better as we don't have enough hours in the day to complete our work. Burn out is very real. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ I see hybrid working, not as a Trust like HH, but particular services. You cannot have a business model with complex variables like A&E and trauma services (eg orthopedic trauma ops vs elective orthopedic ops)." It makes sense to me to have the NHS as A&E only and benefit / low income health cover. From that position the NHS could then tender for other healthcare services | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit?" Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ I see hybrid working, not as a Trust like HH, but particular services. You cannot have a business model with complex variables like A&E and trauma services (eg orthopedic trauma ops vs elective orthopedic ops). It makes sense to me to have the NHS as A&E only and benefit / low income health cover. From that position the NHS could then tender for other healthcare services" Tendering has occurred within the NHS for for many years now. This in itself causes inefficiencies as one trust takes over another, policies reviewed and amalgamated, processes reviewed and... you get the picture. A timely and costly process without standardisation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ I see hybrid working, not as a Trust like HH, but particular services. You cannot have a business model with complex variables like A&E and trauma services (eg orthopedic trauma ops vs elective orthopedic ops). It makes sense to me to have the NHS as A&E only and benefit / low income health cover. From that position the NHS could then tender for other healthcare services Tendering has occurred within the NHS for for many years now. This in itself causes inefficiencies as one trust takes over another, policies reviewed and amalgamated, processes reviewed and... you get the picture. A timely and costly process without standardisation. " That is tendering in the same pond, so to speak. I would expect the NHS to tender for private healthcare services, not own them provide them when required, if obviously they can deliver the service the private healthcare provider was looking for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ I see hybrid working, not as a Trust like HH, but particular services. You cannot have a business model with complex variables like A&E and trauma services (eg orthopedic trauma ops vs elective orthopedic ops). It makes sense to me to have the NHS as A&E only and benefit / low income health cover. From that position the NHS could then tender for other healthcare services Tendering has occurred within the NHS for for many years now. This in itself causes inefficiencies as one trust takes over another, policies reviewed and amalgamated, processes reviewed and... you get the picture. A timely and costly process without standardisation. That is tendering in the same pond, so to speak. I would expect the NHS to tender for private healthcare services, not own them provide them when required, if obviously they can deliver the service the private healthcare provider was looking for. " I am aware of that, just found an inefficiency that's all  .
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The standard response of anyone in the NHS or NHS cultists to the suggestion that there might need to be changes in the way healthcare is provided in the UK is always “you are an ideologue” (despite the fact that they are the ones who are ideologically wedded to one outdated system) or “the only thing that needs to change is that I need to be paid more”. Surely anyone can see that the current system isn’t working and anyone who genuinely has patient care as their central priority would be open to considering all options to improve the situation? As a patient all I want is decent healthcare and I don’t care what the method of providing it is. The only reasons we continue to have the NHS in its current form are ideology, vested interests of NHS staff, and political cowardice. None of it is about patient care." That reminds me of another inefficiency in the NHS. If it would abide by the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". There is ALWAYS change in the NHS. So proves your post is full of bs again. Anyone who has been in the NHS for sometime recognises that we have change for change's sake. Do things this way (oh we did it that way 15 years ago before they changed it), do things that way ( oh we did that 5 years ago and 20). The powers that be feel they have to make small to big changes so they can say to the public, look we're making changes to improve things. Yes the NHS is broken. Yes there needs to be changes but via intensive research into other models globally that compares well with our demographics. Like it or lump it most staff need better pay, for retention and increase of numbers. Like it or lump it the majority of us work beyond our hours without claiming, and are tired of people think we should do more/better. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model." The key here is how they can make a profit while keeping costs the same as they currently are, no one seems able to explain how they would be able to do that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. Thanks, however I presume that is an example of private sector inefficiency rather than public sector efficiency. Your experience seems to be in the NHS so why is the NHS so inefficent? From IT to appointments to every process I have had to deal with. As a patient my experience has been deplorable. As an HCP, not much better as we don't have enough hours in the day to complete our work. Burn out is very real." How many of your working hours are spent really doing what you need to do, and how many are spent fighting the system (or processes) to try and get the job done? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model. The key here is how they can make a profit while keeping costs the same as they currently are, no one seems able to explain how they would be able to do that." By implementing efficiencies, take Twitter as an example of this very thing. Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model. The key here is how they can make a profit while keeping costs the same as they currently are, no one seems able to explain how they would be able to do that." Efficiencies in a word. Both of staff and equipment. If you've invested in expensive assets like MRI scanners, maximise use. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The standard response of anyone in the NHS or NHS cultists to the suggestion that there might need to be changes in the way healthcare is provided in the UK is always “you are an ideologue” (despite the fact that they are the ones who are ideologically wedded to one outdated system) or “the only thing that needs to change is that I need to be paid more”. Surely anyone can see that the current system isn’t working and anyone who genuinely has patient care as their central priority would be open to considering all options to improve the situation? As a patient all I want is decent healthcare and I don’t care what the method of providing it is. The only reasons we continue to have the NHS in its current form are ideology, vested interests of NHS staff, and political cowardice. None of it is about patient care." If you think junior doctors striking was only about pay then it shows you have not actually been paying attention. I tell you what I want. I want to know that when I need their care and attention they are not coming off the back of an 80 hour shift, completely knackered, having been abused all week by patients, their bosses (clinical and non clinical), the media and the general public, so their morale is rock bottom, and they are stressing over how to pay their household bills. I want them fresh, sharp, motivated, and in the ball! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model. The key here is how they can make a profit while keeping costs the same as they currently are, no one seems able to explain how they would be able to do that. By implementing efficiencies, take Twitter as an example of this very thing. Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. " Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model. The key here is how they can make a profit while keeping costs the same as they currently are, no one seems able to explain how they would be able to do that. Efficiencies in a word. Both of staff and equipment. If you've invested in expensive assets like MRI scanners, maximise use." What if the inefficiencies are as a result in f understaffing, for instance? How would a private provider solve that without spending more money? The reason MRI scanners are utilised to their maximum efficiency s because there aren’t staff to run them, not because the booking system is inefficient. Also, what about areas of the country where there are no private providers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you think junior doctors striking was only about pay then it shows you have not actually been paying attention. I tell you what I want. I want to know that when I need their care and attention they are not coming off the back of an 80 hour shift, completely knackered, having been abused all week by patients, their bosses (clinical and non clinical), the media and the general public, so their morale is rock bottom, and they are stressing over how to pay their household bills. I want them fresh, sharp, motivated, and in the ball!" Bringing in a load of doctors from overseas might fix the shift length problem, and more money might fix the worrying about bills. How will the strikes fix low morale due to abuse from patients, other NHS staff, the media, and the general public? Unless you are suggesting that giving them a 35% pay rise will somehow make all that abuse more tolerable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model. The key here is how they can make a profit while keeping costs the same as they currently are, no one seems able to explain how they would be able to do that. By implementing efficiencies, take Twitter as an example of this very thing. Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good!" It’s also full of adverts for utter garbage, and massive amounts of bots. Add to that the introduction of a pay model that has reduced the interaction with ‘good’ tweets and prioritised anyone who is willing to pay for a blue tick. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense." "Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good!" Covering 70% of the customers with 20% of the staff is extremely good. We'll have to wait for the figures to come in, but it looks like Twitter might actually make a profit under Musk, which is better than it has ever achieved before. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model. The key here is how they can make a profit while keeping costs the same as they currently are, no one seems able to explain how they would be able to do that. By implementing efficiencies, take Twitter as an example of this very thing. Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good! It’s also full of adverts for utter garbage, and massive amounts of bots. Add to that the introduction of a pay model that has reduced the interaction with ‘good’ tweets and prioritised anyone who is willing to pay for a blue tick." OK well let me give you my example of an efficient company. As it happens it's in the healthcare system : Specsavers. Simple to get an appointment, staff buzzing with efficiency, seen on time, no cancellations, fast and efficient eye tests, inexpensive optical treatment. Let Specsavers run the NHS I say | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you think junior doctors striking was only about pay then it shows you have not actually been paying attention. I tell you what I want. I want to know that when I need their care and attention they are not coming off the back of an 80 hour shift, completely knackered, having been abused all week by patients, their bosses (clinical and non clinical), the media and the general public, so their morale is rock bottom, and they are stressing over how to pay their household bills. I want them fresh, sharp, motivated, and in the ball! Bringing in a load of doctors from overseas might fix the shift length problem, and more money might fix the worrying about bills. How will the strikes fix low morale due to abuse from patients, other NHS staff, the media, and the general public? Unless you are suggesting that giving them a 35% pay rise will somehow make all that abuse more tolerable." Clearly a sudden 35% pay rise is not affordable. Everybody including doctors and the BME knows that. But it is a negotiating position to start from. Negotiations in good faith need to take place and that needs to look at multiple factors/conditions not just pay. Painting people as greedy for having endured pay freezes or below inflation rises for many years doesn’t help. In other professions the worker will eventually get fed up and leave for another better employer. Where do doctors go? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good! Covering 70% of the customers with 20% of the staff is extremely good. We'll have to wait for the figures to come in, but it looks like Twitter might actually make a profit under Musk, which is better than it has ever achieved before." Cutting cost to turn a profit rather than grow market share and innovate products always strikes me as a reductive short term strategy. I can give you a sample of one. Used to have a personal profile and a professional profile. I now have neither. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model. The key here is how they can make a profit while keeping costs the same as they currently are, no one seems able to explain how they would be able to do that. By implementing efficiencies, take Twitter as an example of this very thing. Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good! It’s also full of adverts for utter garbage, and massive amounts of bots. Add to that the introduction of a pay model that has reduced the interaction with ‘good’ tweets and prioritised anyone who is willing to pay for a blue tick. OK well let me give you my example of an efficient company. As it happens it's in the healthcare system : Specsavers. Simple to get an appointment, staff buzzing with efficiency, seen on time, no cancellations, fast and efficient eye tests, inexpensive optical treatment. Let Specsavers run the NHS I say "Cool but specsavers charge for their services, and when they want to invest they charge more to increase their income. They also pay their staff more than the NHS do, and for less responsibility. On top of that they get to control their demand, they can simply tell people not to turn up, the NHS doesn’t have that luxury. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good! Covering 70% of the customers with 20% of the staff is extremely good. We'll have to wait for the figures to come in, but it looks like Twitter might actually make a profit under Musk, which is better than it has ever achieved before." Is quality not important? I mean I could perform a knee replacement on you but it’s not going to be as good as if an orthopaedic surgeon did it. You still got your knee replacement and we didn’t have to employ an expensive surgeon to do it! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model. The key here is how they can make a profit while keeping costs the same as they currently are, no one seems able to explain how they would be able to do that. By implementing efficiencies, take Twitter as an example of this very thing. Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good! It’s also full of adverts for utter garbage, and massive amounts of bots. Add to that the introduction of a pay model that has reduced the interaction with ‘good’ tweets and prioritised anyone who is willing to pay for a blue tick. OK well let me give you my example of an efficient company. As it happens it's in the healthcare system : Specsavers. Simple to get an appointment, staff buzzing with efficiency, seen on time, no cancellations, fast and efficient eye tests, inexpensive optical treatment. Let Specsavers run the NHS I say
Cool but specsavers charge for their services, and when they want to invest they charge more to increase their income. They also pay their staff more than the NHS do, and for less responsibility. On top of that they get to control their demand, they can simply tell people not to turn up, the NHS doesn’t have that luxury."The NHS charge for their services too - it's a fallacy that healthcare is free. Yes, I get Specsavers and NHS offer different services, but the difference in customer service and attitude is enormous. By the way, Doctors and Nurses can behave like Specsavers - just go to a BUPA Spire. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. Thanks, however I presume that is an example of private sector inefficiency rather than public sector efficiency. Your experience seems to be in the NHS so why is the NHS so inefficent? From IT to appointments to every process I have had to deal with. As a patient my experience has been deplorable. As an HCP, not much better as we don't have enough hours in the day to complete our work. Burn out is very real. How many of your working hours are spent really doing what you need to do, and how many are spent fighting the system (or processes) to try and get the job done?" Most | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model. The key here is how they can make a profit while keeping costs the same as they currently are, no one seems able to explain how they would be able to do that. By implementing efficiencies, take Twitter as an example of this very thing. Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good!" The reduction in user base is due to Musk's free speech policy, the left don't like it.... It has nothing to do with workforce size. If he laid off approx 6500 people the saving per month is off the scale, the average twitter salary was $117K, saving approx $706050000 a month. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model. The key here is how they can make a profit while keeping costs the same as they currently are, no one seems able to explain how they would be able to do that. By implementing efficiencies, take Twitter as an example of this very thing. Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good! It’s also full of adverts for utter garbage, and massive amounts of bots. Add to that the introduction of a pay model that has reduced the interaction with ‘good’ tweets and prioritised anyone who is willing to pay for a blue tick." All of this might be true, but it takes nothing away from the fact the organisation is running just as efficiently with 80% less staff, saving a fortune $$$$$$$$$$$. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model. The key here is how they can make a profit while keeping costs the same as they currently are, no one seems able to explain how they would be able to do that. By implementing efficiencies, take Twitter as an example of this very thing. Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good! It’s also full of adverts for utter garbage, and massive amounts of bots. Add to that the introduction of a pay model that has reduced the interaction with ‘good’ tweets and prioritised anyone who is willing to pay for a blue tick. All of this might be true, but it takes nothing away from the fact the organisation is running just as efficiently with 80% less staff, saving a fortune $$$$$$$$$$$. " Is it running just as efficiently? Do we know that? And even if the answer is yes, how would that approach work with healthcare? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@Debaunched etc agree. This is why I think a simplistic “run the NHS like a business” is not a compelling argument. I do not think healthcare should be a business. I think it should be about looking after people’s health which is complex with huge variables. Saying that, I would prioritise life saving treatment/procedures over anything else in any NHS funding model. That will be harsh but quality of life treatments/procedures would be downgraded in that model (in simple terms hip replacements are less important than cancer treatment if the latter is life threatening)." Your example is a poor one if hip replacement is due to trauma rather than elective replacement, as the person will be on a ward waiting for one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@Debaunched etc agree. This is why I think a simplistic “run the NHS like a business” is not a compelling argument. I do not think healthcare should be a business. I think it should be about looking after people’s health which is complex with huge variables. Saying that, I would prioritise life saving treatment/procedures over anything else in any NHS funding model. That will be harsh but quality of life treatments/procedures would be downgraded in that model (in simple terms hip replacements are less important than cancer treatment if the latter is life threatening)." Cancer is prioritised over hip replacements but think about what happens if you don’t get the hip replacement you need. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model. The key here is how they can make a profit while keeping costs the same as they currently are, no one seems able to explain how they would be able to do that. By implementing efficiencies, take Twitter as an example of this very thing. Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good! It’s also full of adverts for utter garbage, and massive amounts of bots. Add to that the introduction of a pay model that has reduced the interaction with ‘good’ tweets and prioritised anyone who is willing to pay for a blue tick. OK well let me give you my example of an efficient company. As it happens it's in the healthcare system : Specsavers. Simple to get an appointment, staff buzzing with efficiency, seen on time, no cancellations, fast and efficient eye tests, inexpensive optical treatment. Let Specsavers run the NHS I say
Cool but specsavers charge for their services, and when they want to invest they charge more to increase their income. They also pay their staff more than the NHS do, and for less responsibility. On top of that they get to control their demand, they can simply tell people not to turn up, the NHS doesn’t have that luxury.
The NHS charge for their services too - it's a fallacy that healthcare is free.
Yes, I get Specsavers and NHS offer different services, but the difference in customer service and attitude is enormous. By the way, Doctors and Nurses can behave like Specsavers - just go to a BUPA Spire."Again, BUPA et al get the luxury of picking and choosing their patients, they control their demand. They can keep it predictable and profitable, and they can raise their prices whenever they feel like it. The NHS don’t charge, they are given money to run a service, there’s a big difference. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you think junior doctors striking was only about pay then it shows you have not actually been paying attention. I tell you what I want. I want to know that when I need their care and attention they are not coming off the back of an 80 hour shift, completely knackered, having been abused all week by patients, their bosses (clinical and non clinical), the media and the general public, so their morale is rock bottom, and they are stressing over how to pay their household bills. I want them fresh, sharp, motivated, and in the ball! Bringing in a load of doctors from overseas might fix the shift length problem, and more money might fix the worrying about bills. How will the strikes fix low morale due to abuse from patients, other NHS staff, the media, and the general public? Unless you are suggesting that giving them a 35% pay rise will somehow make all that abuse more tolerable. Clearly a sudden 35% pay rise is not affordable. Everybody including doctors and the BME knows that. But it is a negotiating position to start from. Negotiations in good faith need to take place and that needs to look at multiple factors/conditions not just pay. Painting people as greedy for having endured pay freezes or below inflation rises for many years doesn’t help. In other professions the worker will eventually get fed up and leave for another better employer. Where do doctors go?" Junior doctors don't get a pay freeze for years, they progress and with it so does pay. They have had 2 pay rises in 2% in 2021 - 2022 and 8.8% in 2023 - 2024. They also have approx 25% uplift in their salaries for unsociable hours and by year 3 they should be on a basic 40K + additional pay as mentioned, rising over the forthcoming years. All this is common knowledge, and has you mentioned negotiating should be done in good faith, demanding 35% and striking like they have is not good faith, the BMA know they will not achieve this but here they are. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model. The key here is how they can make a profit while keeping costs the same as they currently are, no one seems able to explain how they would be able to do that. By implementing efficiencies, take Twitter as an example of this very thing. Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good! It’s also full of adverts for utter garbage, and massive amounts of bots. Add to that the introduction of a pay model that has reduced the interaction with ‘good’ tweets and prioritised anyone who is willing to pay for a blue tick. OK well let me give you my example of an efficient company. As it happens it's in the healthcare system : Specsavers. Simple to get an appointment, staff buzzing with efficiency, seen on time, no cancellations, fast and efficient eye tests, inexpensive optical treatment. Let Specsavers run the NHS I say
Cool but specsavers charge for their services, and when they want to invest they charge more to increase their income. They also pay their staff more than the NHS do, and for less responsibility. On top of that they get to control their demand, they can simply tell people not to turn up, the NHS doesn’t have that luxury.
The NHS charge for their services too - it's a fallacy that healthcare is free.
Yes, I get Specsavers and NHS offer different services, but the difference in customer service and attitude is enormous. By the way, Doctors and Nurses can behave like Specsavers - just go to a BUPA Spire.
Again, BUPA et al get the luxury of picking and choosing their patients, they control their demand. They can keep it predictable and profitable, and they can raise their prices whenever they feel like it.
The NHS don’t charge, they are given money to run a service, there’s a big difference.
"The NHS picks and chooses its patients. It comes up with some excuse why they can’t be treated, or provides such a bad service that they either don’t get treated at all or go and spend their savings on private healthcare. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model. The key here is how they can make a profit while keeping costs the same as they currently are, no one seems able to explain how they would be able to do that. By implementing efficiencies, take Twitter as an example of this very thing. Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good! It’s also full of adverts for utter garbage, and massive amounts of bots. Add to that the introduction of a pay model that has reduced the interaction with ‘good’ tweets and prioritised anyone who is willing to pay for a blue tick. OK well let me give you my example of an efficient company. As it happens it's in the healthcare system : Specsavers. Simple to get an appointment, staff buzzing with efficiency, seen on time, no cancellations, fast and efficient eye tests, inexpensive optical treatment. Let Specsavers run the NHS I say
Cool but specsavers charge for their services, and when they want to invest they charge more to increase their income. They also pay their staff more than the NHS do, and for less responsibility. On top of that they get to control their demand, they can simply tell people not to turn up, the NHS doesn’t have that luxury.
The NHS charge for their services too - it's a fallacy that healthcare is free.
Yes, I get Specsavers and NHS offer different services, but the difference in customer service and attitude is enormous. By the way, Doctors and Nurses can behave like Specsavers - just go to a BUPA Spire.
Again, BUPA et al get the luxury of picking and choosing their patients, they control their demand. They can keep it predictable and profitable, and they can raise their prices whenever they feel like it.
The NHS don’t charge, they are given money to run a service, there’s a big difference.
"OK fair enough, you're an NHS purist and nothing will convince you. My prediction is that Labour will pour yet more money into the NHS black hole, it will become untenable and a hybrid model inevitable. Latest by 2030. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model. The key here is how they can make a profit while keeping costs the same as they currently are, no one seems able to explain how they would be able to do that." Are you in favour of increased salaries within the NHS? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@Debaunched etc agree. This is why I think a simplistic “run the NHS like a business” is not a compelling argument. I do not think healthcare should be a business. I think it should be about looking after people’s health which is complex with huge variables. Saying that, I would prioritise life saving treatment/procedures over anything else in any NHS funding model. That will be harsh but quality of life treatments/procedures would be downgraded in that model (in simple terms hip replacements are less important than cancer treatment if the latter is life threatening). Your example is a poor one if hip replacement is due to trauma rather than elective replacement, as the person will be on a ward waiting for one." Ok fair enough. I accept there will be nuance. But what if the hip replacement isn’t trauma related? What if it is old age/wear and tear? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model. The key here is how they can make a profit while keeping costs the same as they currently are, no one seems able to explain how they would be able to do that. By implementing efficiencies, take Twitter as an example of this very thing. Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good! It’s also full of adverts for utter garbage, and massive amounts of bots. Add to that the introduction of a pay model that has reduced the interaction with ‘good’ tweets and prioritised anyone who is willing to pay for a blue tick. OK well let me give you my example of an efficient company. As it happens it's in the healthcare system : Specsavers. Simple to get an appointment, staff buzzing with efficiency, seen on time, no cancellations, fast and efficient eye tests, inexpensive optical treatment. Let Specsavers run the NHS I say
Cool but specsavers charge for their services, and when they want to invest they charge more to increase their income. They also pay their staff more than the NHS do, and for less responsibility. On top of that they get to control their demand, they can simply tell people not to turn up, the NHS doesn’t have that luxury.
The NHS charge for their services too - it's a fallacy that healthcare is free.
Yes, I get Specsavers and NHS offer different services, but the difference in customer service and attitude is enormous. By the way, Doctors and Nurses can behave like Specsavers - just go to a BUPA Spire.
Again, BUPA et al get the luxury of picking and choosing their patients, they control their demand. They can keep it predictable and profitable, and they can raise their prices whenever they feel like it.
The NHS don’t charge, they are given money to run a service, there’s a big difference.
The NHS picks and chooses its patients.
It comes up with some excuse why they can’t be treated, or provides such a bad service that they either don’t get treated at all or go and spend their savings on private healthcare."If the NHS won’t treat you for something it’s generally cost driven, the government have decided it’s not cost effective, the decision does not lie with the NHS. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@Debaunched etc agree. This is why I think a simplistic “run the NHS like a business” is not a compelling argument. I do not think healthcare should be a business. I think it should be about looking after people’s health which is complex with huge variables. Saying that, I would prioritise life saving treatment/procedures over anything else in any NHS funding model. That will be harsh but quality of life treatments/procedures would be downgraded in that model (in simple terms hip replacements are less important than cancer treatment if the latter is life threatening). Cancer is prioritised over hip replacements but think about what happens if you don’t get the hip replacement you need." Those might specifically be bad examples (I am clearly not a health professional) but if we have finite resources (money, people, equipment, facilities) then choices have to be made. For me (simplistically) saving lives is number one. If that was “all” we could achieve then while that would be shit it surely has to be the right way to prioritise/triage the issue? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model. The key here is how they can make a profit while keeping costs the same as they currently are, no one seems able to explain how they would be able to do that. By implementing efficiencies, take Twitter as an example of this very thing. Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good! It’s also full of adverts for utter garbage, and massive amounts of bots. Add to that the introduction of a pay model that has reduced the interaction with ‘good’ tweets and prioritised anyone who is willing to pay for a blue tick. All of this might be true, but it takes nothing away from the fact the organisation is running just as efficiently with 80% less staff, saving a fortune $$$$$$$$$$$. Is it running just as efficiently? Do we know that? And even if the answer is yes, how would that approach work with healthcare?" The covers need to come off, throwing money into a bottomless pit is the only quick win tactic on the table by any of the parties. I think the bottom line is simple, if people want a health service that works, the first thing they need to understand is the NHS is not "free". From this position, what do people expect and how much is it going to cost, is it now a more cost effective exercise to go private for an individual, we would then start to see the NHS taking more interest in staffing numbers, treatment times etc if they were seriously compromised on funding by people leaving their service. If a person has Private healthcare and needed A&E, they should pay for it through insurance, they need to start looking at how they package their offerings and start thinking about making some money as well as spending it. We need to stop being forced to pay for a service that is broken, it is not ethical to take money off people for something they can't use when it is needed. I advocate tax incentives to encourage people to take private healthcare, and lower the numbers of people using the NHS. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model. The key here is how they can make a profit while keeping costs the same as they currently are, no one seems able to explain how they would be able to do that. By implementing efficiencies, take Twitter as an example of this very thing. Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good! It’s also full of adverts for utter garbage, and massive amounts of bots. Add to that the introduction of a pay model that has reduced the interaction with ‘good’ tweets and prioritised anyone who is willing to pay for a blue tick. OK well let me give you my example of an efficient company. As it happens it's in the healthcare system : Specsavers. Simple to get an appointment, staff buzzing with efficiency, seen on time, no cancellations, fast and efficient eye tests, inexpensive optical treatment. Let Specsavers run the NHS I say
Cool but specsavers charge for their services, and when they want to invest they charge more to increase their income. They also pay their staff more than the NHS do, and for less responsibility. On top of that they get to control their demand, they can simply tell people not to turn up, the NHS doesn’t have that luxury.
The NHS charge for their services too - it's a fallacy that healthcare is free.
Yes, I get Specsavers and NHS offer different services, but the difference in customer service and attitude is enormous. By the way, Doctors and Nurses can behave like Specsavers - just go to a BUPA Spire.
Again, BUPA et al get the luxury of picking and choosing their patients, they control their demand. They can keep it predictable and profitable, and they can raise their prices whenever they feel like it.
The NHS don’t charge, they are given money to run a service, there’s a big difference.
OK fair enough, you're an NHS purist and nothing will convince you. My prediction is that Labour will pour yet more money into the NHS black hole, it will become untenable and a hybrid model inevitable. Latest by 2030."No, I am happy to be convinced but as someone who has worked in both the NHS and private healthcare I am very tired of people who don’t know how either work telling me how to make the NHS more efficient. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model. The key here is how they can make a profit while keeping costs the same as they currently are, no one seems able to explain how they would be able to do that. By implementing efficiencies, take Twitter as an example of this very thing. Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good! It’s also full of adverts for utter garbage, and massive amounts of bots. Add to that the introduction of a pay model that has reduced the interaction with ‘good’ tweets and prioritised anyone who is willing to pay for a blue tick. OK well let me give you my example of an efficient company. As it happens it's in the healthcare system : Specsavers. Simple to get an appointment, staff buzzing with efficiency, seen on time, no cancellations, fast and efficient eye tests, inexpensive optical treatment. Let Specsavers run the NHS I say
Cool but specsavers charge for their services, and when they want to invest they charge more to increase their income. They also pay their staff more than the NHS do, and for less responsibility. On top of that they get to control their demand, they can simply tell people not to turn up, the NHS doesn’t have that luxury.
The NHS charge for their services too - it's a fallacy that healthcare is free.
Yes, I get Specsavers and NHS offer different services, but the difference in customer service and attitude is enormous. By the way, Doctors and Nurses can behave like Specsavers - just go to a BUPA Spire.
Again, BUPA et al get the luxury of picking and choosing their patients, they control their demand. They can keep it predictable and profitable, and they can raise their prices whenever they feel like it.
The NHS don’t charge, they are given money to run a service, there’s a big difference.
OK fair enough, you're an NHS purist and nothing will convince you. My prediction is that Labour will pour yet more money into the NHS black hole, it will become untenable and a hybrid model inevitable. Latest by 2030.
No, I am happy to be convinced but as someone who has worked in both the NHS and private healthcare I am very tired of people who don’t know how either work telling me how to make the NHS more efficient."We're all ears!!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model. The key here is how they can make a profit while keeping costs the same as they currently are, no one seems able to explain how they would be able to do that. By implementing efficiencies, take Twitter as an example of this very thing. Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good! It’s also full of adverts for utter garbage, and massive amounts of bots. Add to that the introduction of a pay model that has reduced the interaction with ‘good’ tweets and prioritised anyone who is willing to pay for a blue tick. All of this might be true, but it takes nothing away from the fact the organisation is running just as efficiently with 80% less staff, saving a fortune $$$$$$$$$$$. Is it running just as efficiently? Do we know that? And even if the answer is yes, how would that approach work with healthcare? The covers need to come off, throwing money into a bottomless pit is the only quick win tactic on the table by any of the parties. I think the bottom line is simple, if people want a health service that works, the first thing they need to understand is the NHS is not "free". From this position, what do people expect and how much is it going to cost, is it now a more cost effective exercise to go private for an individual, we would then start to see the NHS taking more interest in staffing numbers, treatment times etc if they were seriously compromised on funding by people leaving their service. If a person has Private healthcare and needed A&E, they should pay for it through insurance, they need to start looking at how they package their offerings and start thinking about making some money as well as spending it. We need to stop being forced to pay for a service that is broken, it is not ethical to take money off people for something they can't use when it is needed. I advocate tax incentives to encourage people to take private healthcare, and lower the numbers of people using the NHS. " Your last point you have said previously and I sympathise re tax incentives to go private a relieve pressure on NHS. But what about people who can’t afford health insurance? What about pre-existing and hereditary conditions? What about lifestyle premiums? What about premiums increasing with age or the development of a condition? What about maximum payouts per year in the events of developing a condition? What if the cost if your treatment goes over the threshold? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model. The key here is how they can make a profit while keeping costs the same as they currently are, no one seems able to explain how they would be able to do that. By implementing efficiencies, take Twitter as an example of this very thing. Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good! It’s also full of adverts for utter garbage, and massive amounts of bots. Add to that the introduction of a pay model that has reduced the interaction with ‘good’ tweets and prioritised anyone who is willing to pay for a blue tick. All of this might be true, but it takes nothing away from the fact the organisation is running just as efficiently with 80% less staff, saving a fortune $$$$$$$$$$$. Is it running just as efficiently? Do we know that? And even if the answer is yes, how would that approach work with healthcare? The covers need to come off, throwing money into a bottomless pit is the only quick win tactic on the table by any of the parties. I think the bottom line is simple, if people want a health service that works, the first thing they need to understand is the NHS is not "free". From this position, what do people expect and how much is it going to cost, is it now a more cost effective exercise to go private for an individual, we would then start to see the NHS taking more interest in staffing numbers, treatment times etc if they were seriously compromised on funding by people leaving their service. If a person has Private healthcare and needed A&E, they should pay for it through insurance, they need to start looking at how they package their offerings and start thinking about making some money as well as spending it. We need to stop being forced to pay for a service that is broken, it is not ethical to take money off people for something they can't use when it is needed. I advocate tax incentives to encourage people to take private healthcare, and lower the numbers of people using the NHS. Your last point you have said previously and I sympathise re tax incentives to go private a relieve pressure on NHS. But what about people who can’t afford health insurance? What about pre-existing and hereditary conditions? What about lifestyle premiums? What about premiums increasing with age or the development of a condition? What about maximum payouts per year in the events of developing a condition? What if the cost if your treatment goes over the threshold?" good questions, but unless you are going to start paying my day rate
I think health insurance needs to be looked at, the US is probably a good place to workout best practices.
As for people who can't afford healthcare, the NHS should still be funded for A&E and people who can't afford healthcare.
In theory, the amount of money needed by the NHS would diminish as its user numbers fall.
They would also start to have some self funding through A&E functions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model. The key here is how they can make a profit while keeping costs the same as they currently are, no one seems able to explain how they would be able to do that. By implementing efficiencies, take Twitter as an example of this very thing. Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good! It’s also full of adverts for utter garbage, and massive amounts of bots. Add to that the introduction of a pay model that has reduced the interaction with ‘good’ tweets and prioritised anyone who is willing to pay for a blue tick. All of this might be true, but it takes nothing away from the fact the organisation is running just as efficiently with 80% less staff, saving a fortune $$$$$$$$$$$. Is it running just as efficiently? Do we know that? And even if the answer is yes, how would that approach work with healthcare? The covers need to come off, throwing money into a bottomless pit is the only quick win tactic on the table by any of the parties. I think the bottom line is simple, if people want a health service that works, the first thing they need to understand is the NHS is not "free". From this position, what do people expect and how much is it going to cost, is it now a more cost effective exercise to go private for an individual, we would then start to see the NHS taking more interest in staffing numbers, treatment times etc if they were seriously compromised on funding by people leaving their service. If a person has Private healthcare and needed A&E, they should pay for it through insurance, they need to start looking at how they package their offerings and start thinking about making some money as well as spending it. We need to stop being forced to pay for a service that is broken, it is not ethical to take money off people for something they can't use when it is needed. I advocate tax incentives to encourage people to take private healthcare, and lower the numbers of people using the NHS. Your last point you have said previously and I sympathise re tax incentives to go private a relieve pressure on NHS. But what about people who can’t afford health insurance? What about pre-existing and hereditary conditions? What about lifestyle premiums? What about premiums increasing with age or the development of a condition? What about maximum payouts per year in the events of developing a condition? What if the cost if your treatment goes over the threshold? good questions, but unless you are going to start paying my day rate
I think health insurance needs to be looked at, the US is probably a good place to workout best practices.
As for people who can't afford healthcare, the NHS should still be funded for A&E and people who can't afford healthcare.
In theory, the amount of money needed by the NHS would diminish as its user numbers fall.
They would also start to have some self funding through A&E functions."I knew you were a consultant but now wondering if that is in the private healthcare sector? Hmmm lobbying perhaps? Joking aside…the answers to those questions are absolutely key before we can adopt an insurance based approach for all except those who cannot afford it* *how do we determine who that is? Where do we draw the line? Income or assets? Dependents? What about kids in foster care? Would there beca sliding scale or cliff edge on eligibility for “free” treatment? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model. The key here is how they can make a profit while keeping costs the same as they currently are, no one seems able to explain how they would be able to do that. By implementing efficiencies, take Twitter as an example of this very thing. Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good! It’s also full of adverts for utter garbage, and massive amounts of bots. Add to that the introduction of a pay model that has reduced the interaction with ‘good’ tweets and prioritised anyone who is willing to pay for a blue tick. All of this might be true, but it takes nothing away from the fact the organisation is running just as efficiently with 80% less staff, saving a fortune $$$$$$$$$$$. Is it running just as efficiently? Do we know that? And even if the answer is yes, how would that approach work with healthcare? The covers need to come off, throwing money into a bottomless pit is the only quick win tactic on the table by any of the parties. I think the bottom line is simple, if people want a health service that works, the first thing they need to understand is the NHS is not "free". From this position, what do people expect and how much is it going to cost, is it now a more cost effective exercise to go private for an individual, we would then start to see the NHS taking more interest in staffing numbers, treatment times etc if they were seriously compromised on funding by people leaving their service. If a person has Private healthcare and needed A&E, they should pay for it through insurance, they need to start looking at how they package their offerings and start thinking about making some money as well as spending it. We need to stop being forced to pay for a service that is broken, it is not ethical to take money off people for something they can't use when it is needed. I advocate tax incentives to encourage people to take private healthcare, and lower the numbers of people using the NHS. Your last point you have said previously and I sympathise re tax incentives to go private a relieve pressure on NHS. But what about people who can’t afford health insurance? What about pre-existing and hereditary conditions? What about lifestyle premiums? What about premiums increasing with age or the development of a condition? What about maximum payouts per year in the events of developing a condition? What if the cost if your treatment goes over the threshold? good questions, but unless you are going to start paying my day rate
I think health insurance needs to be looked at, the US is probably a good place to workout best practices.
As for people who can't afford healthcare, the NHS should still be funded for A&E and people who can't afford healthcare.
In theory, the amount of money needed by the NHS would diminish as its user numbers fall.
They would also start to have some self funding through A&E functions.
I knew you were a consultant but now wondering if that is in the private healthcare sector? Hmmm lobbying perhaps?
Joking aside…the answers to those questions are absolutely key before we can adopt an insurance based approach for all except those who cannot afford it*
*how do we determine who that is? Where do we draw the line? Income or assets? Dependents? What about kids in foster care? Would there beca sliding scale or cliff edge on eligibility for “free” treatment? "Think of it like a dental service. A NHS dentist (who actually sees NHS patients) will work on their NHS customer, they will fill teeth, take them out and do a little maintenance work. The private customer has choices, white fillings, dental whitening, all the latest new stuff for maintaining a healthy mouth, in a room with soft music playing. This could be the NHS way for those that can't afford private healthcare, the basics but no frills. As for who qualifies who doesn't, if a person turns up to the NHS hospital without healthcare insurance they are treated, if they have healthcare insurance, the NHS should charge for the service provided. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model. The key here is how they can make a profit while keeping costs the same as they currently are, no one seems able to explain how they would be able to do that. By implementing efficiencies, take Twitter as an example of this very thing. Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good! It’s also full of adverts for utter garbage, and massive amounts of bots. Add to that the introduction of a pay model that has reduced the interaction with ‘good’ tweets and prioritised anyone who is willing to pay for a blue tick. All of this might be true, but it takes nothing away from the fact the organisation is running just as efficiently with 80% less staff, saving a fortune $$$$$$$$$$$. Is it running just as efficiently? Do we know that? And even if the answer is yes, how would that approach work with healthcare? The covers need to come off, throwing money into a bottomless pit is the only quick win tactic on the table by any of the parties. I think the bottom line is simple, if people want a health service that works, the first thing they need to understand is the NHS is not "free". From this position, what do people expect and how much is it going to cost, is it now a more cost effective exercise to go private for an individual, we would then start to see the NHS taking more interest in staffing numbers, treatment times etc if they were seriously compromised on funding by people leaving their service. If a person has Private healthcare and needed A&E, they should pay for it through insurance, they need to start looking at how they package their offerings and start thinking about making some money as well as spending it. We need to stop being forced to pay for a service that is broken, it is not ethical to take money off people for something they can't use when it is needed. I advocate tax incentives to encourage people to take private healthcare, and lower the numbers of people using the NHS. Your last point you have said previously and I sympathise re tax incentives to go private a relieve pressure on NHS. But what about people who can’t afford health insurance? What about pre-existing and hereditary conditions? What about lifestyle premiums? What about premiums increasing with age or the development of a condition? What about maximum payouts per year in the events of developing a condition? What if the cost if your treatment goes over the threshold? good questions, but unless you are going to start paying my day rate
I think health insurance needs to be looked at, the US is probably a good place to workout best practices.
As for people who can't afford healthcare, the NHS should still be funded for A&E and people who can't afford healthcare.
In theory, the amount of money needed by the NHS would diminish as its user numbers fall.
They would also start to have some self funding through A&E functions.
I knew you were a consultant but now wondering if that is in the private healthcare sector? Hmmm lobbying perhaps?
Joking aside…the answers to those questions are absolutely key before we can adopt an insurance based approach for all except those who cannot afford it*
*how do we determine who that is? Where do we draw the line? Income or assets? Dependents? What about kids in foster care? Would there beca sliding scale or cliff edge on eligibility for “free” treatment?
Think of it like a dental service.
A NHS dentist (who actually sees NHS patients) will work on their NHS customer, they will fill teeth, take them out and do a little maintenance work.
The private customer has choices, white fillings, dental whitening, all the latest new stuff for maintaining a healthy mouth, in a room with soft music playing.
This could be the NHS way for those that can't afford private healthcare, the basics but no frills.
As for who qualifies who doesn't, if a person turns up to the NHS hospital without healthcare insurance they are treated, if they have healthcare insurance, the NHS should charge for the service provided. "No frills heart bypass surgery? I’m jesting
For me it comes back to the NHS being there to save lives first and foremost. Once that has been clearly prioritised and funded, then within reason the rest can follow.
Maybe Private picks up all elective (though that does of course mean poor people without insurance cannot have that option).
I think the only way to really make it work is clear blue water between State/NHS and Private. I think the mixed model (and outsourcing within the NHS) is a drain on taxpayers and funding. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Clearly a sudden 35% pay rise is not affordable. Everybody including doctors and the BME knows that. But it is a negotiating position to start from. Negotiations in good faith need to take place ..." I would suggest that the fact that the union is demanding an obviously unjustifiable pay rise, and saying that it's a "negotiating position" demonstrates that they aren't showing any 'good faith'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No frills heart bypass surgery? I’m jesting
For me it comes back to the NHS being there to save lives first and foremost. Once that has been clearly prioritised and funded, then within reason the rest can follow.
Maybe Private picks up all elective (though that does of course mean poor people without insurance cannot have that option).
I think the only way to really make it work is clear blue water between State/NHS and Private. I think the mixed model (and outsourcing within the NHS) is a drain on taxpayers and funding."Yes, today we have NHS doctors dabbling with the private sector, this should stop as a matter of urgency. If the doctor wants more work, they should be bringing down the NHS waiting lists, or get a full time job in private health. If we invest in private health, it will allow those companies to invest in their training and recruitment, removing a drain on the NHS. No frills heart bypass, operation as standard, one cold cup of tea every 6 hours in a battered plastic cup, really basic and poorly cooked meal choices and sharing a toilet. Hold on a minute | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No frills heart bypass surgery? I’m jesting
For me it comes back to the NHS being there to save lives first and foremost. Once that has been clearly prioritised and funded, then within reason the rest can follow.
Maybe Private picks up all elective (though that does of course mean poor people without insurance cannot have that option).
I think the only way to really make it work is clear blue water between State/NHS and Private. I think the mixed model (and outsourcing within the NHS) is a drain on taxpayers and funding.
Yes, today we have NHS doctors dabbling with the private sector, this should stop as a matter of urgency. If the doctor wants more work, they should be bringing down the NHS waiting lists, to get a full time job in private health.
If we invest in private health, it will allow those companies to invest in their training and recruitment, removing a drain on the NHS.
No frills heart bypass, operation as standard, one cold cup of tea every 6 hours in a battered plastic cup, really basic and poorly cooked meal choices and sharing a toilet. Hold on a minute "So as I understand it, in the UK to practice private medicine you MUST do a minimum number of hours a year (might be month might be week) in the NHS (to keep your “licence”). Anyone know if that is true? Assuming it is, then are you saying @NotMe that you think doctors working in NHS should be exclusive to NHS? I like that idea except a) it reduces their earning potential so do we compensate and b) would presumably mean private doctors did not have to work in NHS so the good ones will fuck off and earn shed loads working exclusively in private! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense." "Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good!" "Covering 70% of the customers with 20% of the staff is extremely good. We'll have to wait for the figures to come in, but it looks like Twitter might actually make a profit under Musk, which is better than it has ever achieved before." "Cutting cost to turn a profit rather than grow market share and innovate products always strikes me as a reductive short term strategy. I can give you a sample of one. Used to have a personal profile and a professional profile. I now have neither." Why did you leave? Is it because the service level fell, or is it because you don't like the new owner? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good! Covering 70% of the customers with 20% of the staff is extremely good. We'll have to wait for the figures to come in, but it looks like Twitter might actually make a profit under Musk, which is better than it has ever achieved before. Cutting cost to turn a profit rather than grow market share and innovate products always strikes me as a reductive short term strategy. I can give you a sample of one. Used to have a personal profile and a professional profile. I now have neither. Why did you leave? Is it because the service level fell, or is it because you don't like the new owner?" Because the discourse got increasingly toxic and myopic and ceased to be fun. Also it got “glitchy” causing frustration. Couldn’t give a shit about Elon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good! Covering 70% of the customers with 20% of the staff is extremely good. We'll have to wait for the figures to come in, but it looks like Twitter might actually make a profit under Musk, which is better than it has ever achieved before. Cutting cost to turn a profit rather than grow market share and innovate products always strikes me as a reductive short term strategy. I can give you a sample of one. Used to have a personal profile and a professional profile. I now have neither. Why did you leave? Is it because the service level fell, or is it because you don't like the new owner? Because the discourse got increasingly toxic and myopic and ceased to be fun. Also it got “glitchy” causing frustration. Couldn’t give a shit about Elon." Twitter was that way before Elon took over. I'd blame society for that more than the platform. There are glitches but not something that would make me leave. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good! Covering 70% of the customers with 20% of the staff is extremely good. We'll have to wait for the figures to come in, but it looks like Twitter might actually make a profit under Musk, which is better than it has ever achieved before. Cutting cost to turn a profit rather than grow market share and innovate products always strikes me as a reductive short term strategy. I can give you a sample of one. Used to have a personal profile and a professional profile. I now have neither. Why did you leave? Is it because the service level fell, or is it because you don't like the new owner? Because the discourse got increasingly toxic and myopic and ceased to be fun. Also it got “glitchy” causing frustration. Couldn’t give a shit about Elon." I’ve started using X again since Musk took over. I’ve had no issues with it at all. It’s good that one can see a variety of opinions on issues, rather than the censored leftist group think that’s available on most social media platforms. I stopped using everything else years ago, even before COVID/2016 it was obvious how things were going and there was some weird Big Tech/government merger happening. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@Debaunched etc agree. This is why I think a simplistic “run the NHS like a business” is not a compelling argument. I do not think healthcare should be a business. I think it should be about looking after people’s health which is complex with huge variables. Saying that, I would prioritise life saving treatment/procedures over anything else in any NHS funding model. That will be harsh but quality of life treatments/procedures would be downgraded in that model (in simple terms hip replacements are less important than cancer treatment if the latter is life threatening). Your example is a poor one if hip replacement is due to trauma rather than elective replacement, as the person will be on a ward waiting for one. Ok fair enough. I accept there will be nuance. But what if the hip replacement isn’t trauma related? What if it is old age/wear and tear?" If you get to the point of being listed for a hip replacement you are likely to be in a lot of pain, and your mobility will be severely impaired. A total hip replacement is major surgery. You are likely to de-condition pretty quickly, put on weight and exacerbate any co-morbidities. Your hip will continue to get worse and you will put stress on other joints (other hip, knees) which will increase wear and tear. The surgery will become more different the longer you wait. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No frills heart bypass surgery? I’m jesting
For me it comes back to the NHS being there to save lives first and foremost. Once that has been clearly prioritised and funded, then within reason the rest can follow.
Maybe Private picks up all elective (though that does of course mean poor people without insurance cannot have that option).
I think the only way to really make it work is clear blue water between State/NHS and Private. I think the mixed model (and outsourcing within the NHS) is a drain on taxpayers and funding.
Yes, today we have NHS doctors dabbling with the private sector, this should stop as a matter of urgency. If the doctor wants more work, they should be bringing down the NHS waiting lists, to get a full time job in private health.
If we invest in private health, it will allow those companies to invest in their training and recruitment, removing a drain on the NHS.
No frills heart bypass, operation as standard, one cold cup of tea every 6 hours in a battered plastic cup, really basic and poorly cooked meal choices and sharing a toilet. Hold on a minute
So as I understand it, in the UK to practice private medicine you MUST do a minimum number of hours a year (might be month might be week) in the NHS (to keep your “licence”).
Anyone know if that is true?
Assuming it is, then are you saying @NotMe that you think doctors working in NHS should be exclusive to NHS? I like that idea except a) it reduces their earning potential so do we compensate and b) would presumably mean private doctors did not have to work in NHS so the good ones will fuck off and earn shed loads working exclusively in private!"You have to perform a certain number of each procedure in order to remain competent, I am unaware if that needs to be in the NHS only, or combined with private. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good! Covering 70% of the customers with 20% of the staff is extremely good. We'll have to wait for the figures to come in, but it looks like Twitter might actually make a profit under Musk, which is better than it has ever achieved before. Cutting cost to turn a profit rather than grow market share and innovate products always strikes me as a reductive short term strategy. I can give you a sample of one. Used to have a personal profile and a professional profile. I now have neither. Why did you leave? Is it because the service level fell, or is it because you don't like the new owner? Because the discourse got increasingly toxic and myopic and ceased to be fun. Also it got “glitchy” causing frustration. Couldn’t give a shit about Elon. Twitter was that way before Elon took over. I'd blame society for that more than the platform. There are glitches but not something that would make me leave. " IMO it got worse on both counts so I lost interest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model. The key here is how they can make a profit while keeping costs the same as they currently are, no one seems able to explain how they would be able to do that. By implementing efficiencies, take Twitter as an example of this very thing. Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good! It’s also full of adverts for utter garbage, and massive amounts of bots. Add to that the introduction of a pay model that has reduced the interaction with ‘good’ tweets and prioritised anyone who is willing to pay for a blue tick. All of this might be true, but it takes nothing away from the fact the organisation is running just as efficiently with 80% less staff, saving a fortune $$$$$$$$$$$. Is it running just as efficiently? Do we know that? And even if the answer is yes, how would that approach work with healthcare? The covers need to come off, throwing money into a bottomless pit is the only quick win tactic on the table by any of the parties. I think the bottom line is simple, if people want a health service that works, the first thing they need to understand is the NHS is not "free". From this position, what do people expect and how much is it going to cost, is it now a more cost effective exercise to go private for an individual, we would then start to see the NHS taking more interest in staffing numbers, treatment times etc if they were seriously compromised on funding by people leaving their service. If a person has Private healthcare and needed A&E, they should pay for it through insurance, they need to start looking at how they package their offerings and start thinking about making some money as well as spending it. We need to stop being forced to pay for a service that is broken, it is not ethical to take money off people for something they can't use when it is needed. I advocate tax incentives to encourage people to take private healthcare, and lower the numbers of people using the NHS. Your last point you have said previously and I sympathise re tax incentives to go private a relieve pressure on NHS. But what about people who can’t afford health insurance? What about pre-existing and hereditary conditions? What about lifestyle premiums? What about premiums increasing with age or the development of a condition? What about maximum payouts per year in the events of developing a condition? What if the cost if your treatment goes over the threshold? good questions, but unless you are going to start paying my day rate
I think health insurance needs to be looked at, the US is probably a good place to workout best practices.
As for people who can't afford healthcare, the NHS should still be funded for A&E and people who can't afford healthcare.
In theory, the amount of money needed by the NHS would diminish as its user numbers fall.
They would also start to have some self funding through A&E functions."Given the horror stories that come out of the US about people WITH health insurance being bankrupted by healthcare costs I’d say it could certainly help us to establish best practice by not doing what they do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model. The key here is how they can make a profit while keeping costs the same as they currently are, no one seems able to explain how they would be able to do that. By implementing efficiencies, take Twitter as an example of this very thing. Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good! It’s also full of adverts for utter garbage, and massive amounts of bots. Add to that the introduction of a pay model that has reduced the interaction with ‘good’ tweets and prioritised anyone who is willing to pay for a blue tick. All of this might be true, but it takes nothing away from the fact the organisation is running just as efficiently with 80% less staff, saving a fortune $$$$$$$$$$$. Is it running just as efficiently? Do we know that? And even if the answer is yes, how would that approach work with healthcare? The covers need to come off, throwing money into a bottomless pit is the only quick win tactic on the table by any of the parties. I think the bottom line is simple, if people want a health service that works, the first thing they need to understand is the NHS is not "free". From this position, what do people expect and how much is it going to cost, is it now a more cost effective exercise to go private for an individual, we would then start to see the NHS taking more interest in staffing numbers, treatment times etc if they were seriously compromised on funding by people leaving their service. If a person has Private healthcare and needed A&E, they should pay for it through insurance, they need to start looking at how they package their offerings and start thinking about making some money as well as spending it. We need to stop being forced to pay for a service that is broken, it is not ethical to take money off people for something they can't use when it is needed. I advocate tax incentives to encourage people to take private healthcare, and lower the numbers of people using the NHS. Your last point you have said previously and I sympathise re tax incentives to go private a relieve pressure on NHS. But what about people who can’t afford health insurance? What about pre-existing and hereditary conditions? What about lifestyle premiums? What about premiums increasing with age or the development of a condition? What about maximum payouts per year in the events of developing a condition? What if the cost if your treatment goes over the threshold? good questions, but unless you are going to start paying my day rate
I think health insurance needs to be looked at, the US is probably a good place to workout best practices.
As for people who can't afford healthcare, the NHS should still be funded for A&E and people who can't afford healthcare.
In theory, the amount of money needed by the NHS would diminish as its user numbers fall.
They would also start to have some self funding through A&E functions.
Given the horror stories that come out of the US about people WITH health insurance being bankrupted by healthcare costs I’d say it could certainly help us to establish best practice by not doing what they do."When US politicians discuss healthcare options they always hold up the NHS as the prime example of exactly what they don’t want. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@Debaunched etc agree. This is why I think a simplistic “run the NHS like a business” is not a compelling argument. I do not think healthcare should be a business. I think it should be about looking after people’s health which is complex with huge variables. Saying that, I would prioritise life saving treatment/procedures over anything else in any NHS funding model. That will be harsh but quality of life treatments/procedures would be downgraded in that model (in simple terms hip replacements are less important than cancer treatment if the latter is life threatening). Your example is a poor one if hip replacement is due to trauma rather than elective replacement, as the person will be on a ward waiting for one. Ok fair enough. I accept there will be nuance. But what if the hip replacement isn’t trauma related? What if it is old age/wear and tear?" That is what's regarded as elective. The problem here is the very real danger of it becoming a trauma case (like those on waiting lists currently). Much more expensive than elective procedures. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model. The key here is how they can make a profit while keeping costs the same as they currently are, no one seems able to explain how they would be able to do that. By implementing efficiencies, take Twitter as an example of this very thing. Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good! It’s also full of adverts for utter garbage, and massive amounts of bots. Add to that the introduction of a pay model that has reduced the interaction with ‘good’ tweets and prioritised anyone who is willing to pay for a blue tick. All of this might be true, but it takes nothing away from the fact the organisation is running just as efficiently with 80% less staff, saving a fortune $$$$$$$$$$$. Is it running just as efficiently? Do we know that? And even if the answer is yes, how would that approach work with healthcare? The covers need to come off, throwing money into a bottomless pit is the only quick win tactic on the table by any of the parties. I think the bottom line is simple, if people want a health service that works, the first thing they need to understand is the NHS is not "free". From this position, what do people expect and how much is it going to cost, is it now a more cost effective exercise to go private for an individual, we would then start to see the NHS taking more interest in staffing numbers, treatment times etc if they were seriously compromised on funding by people leaving their service. If a person has Private healthcare and needed A&E, they should pay for it through insurance, they need to start looking at how they package their offerings and start thinking about making some money as well as spending it. We need to stop being forced to pay for a service that is broken, it is not ethical to take money off people for something they can't use when it is needed. I advocate tax incentives to encourage people to take private healthcare, and lower the numbers of people using the NHS. Your last point you have said previously and I sympathise re tax incentives to go private a relieve pressure on NHS. But what about people who can’t afford health insurance? What about pre-existing and hereditary conditions? What about lifestyle premiums? What about premiums increasing with age or the development of a condition? What about maximum payouts per year in the events of developing a condition? What if the cost if your treatment goes over the threshold? good questions, but unless you are going to start paying my day rate
I think health insurance needs to be looked at, the US is probably a good place to workout best practices.
As for people who can't afford healthcare, the NHS should still be funded for A&E and people who can't afford healthcare.
In theory, the amount of money needed by the NHS would diminish as its user numbers fall.
They would also start to have some self funding through A&E functions.
I knew you were a consultant but now wondering if that is in the private healthcare sector? Hmmm lobbying perhaps?
Joking aside…the answers to those questions are absolutely key before we can adopt an insurance based approach for all except those who cannot afford it*
*how do we determine who that is? Where do we draw the line? Income or assets? Dependents? What about kids in foster care? Would there beca sliding scale or cliff edge on eligibility for “free” treatment?
Think of it like a dental service.
A NHS dentist (who actually sees NHS patients) will work on their NHS customer, they will fill teeth, take them out and do a little maintenance work.
The private customer has choices, white fillings, dental whitening, all the latest new stuff for maintaining a healthy mouth, in a room with soft music playing.
This could be the NHS way for those that can't afford private healthcare, the basics but no frills.
As for who qualifies who doesn't, if a person turns up to the NHS hospital without healthcare insurance they are treated, if they have healthcare insurance, the NHS should charge for the service provided.
No frills heart bypass surgery?
I’m jesting
For me it comes back to the NHS being there to save lives first and foremost. Once that has been clearly prioritised and funded, then within reason the rest can follow.
Maybe Private picks up all elective (though that does of course mean poor people without insurance cannot have that option).
I think the only way to really make it work is clear blue water between State/NHS and Private. I think the mixed model (and outsourcing within the NHS) is a drain on taxpayers and funding."Which we can look to our neighbours, globally, as I have stated. But remember, it wasn't that long ago we had an NHS to be proud of. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model. The key here is how they can make a profit while keeping costs the same as they currently are, no one seems able to explain how they would be able to do that. By implementing efficiencies, take Twitter as an example of this very thing. Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good! It’s also full of adverts for utter garbage, and massive amounts of bots. Add to that the introduction of a pay model that has reduced the interaction with ‘good’ tweets and prioritised anyone who is willing to pay for a blue tick. All of this might be true, but it takes nothing away from the fact the organisation is running just as efficiently with 80% less staff, saving a fortune $$$$$$$$$$$. Is it running just as efficiently? Do we know that? And even if the answer is yes, how would that approach work with healthcare? The covers need to come off, throwing money into a bottomless pit is the only quick win tactic on the table by any of the parties. I think the bottom line is simple, if people want a health service that works, the first thing they need to understand is the NHS is not "free". From this position, what do people expect and how much is it going to cost, is it now a more cost effective exercise to go private for an individual, we would then start to see the NHS taking more interest in staffing numbers, treatment times etc if they were seriously compromised on funding by people leaving their service. If a person has Private healthcare and needed A&E, they should pay for it through insurance, they need to start looking at how they package their offerings and start thinking about making some money as well as spending it. We need to stop being forced to pay for a service that is broken, it is not ethical to take money off people for something they can't use when it is needed. I advocate tax incentives to encourage people to take private healthcare, and lower the numbers of people using the NHS. Your last point you have said previously and I sympathise re tax incentives to go private a relieve pressure on NHS. But what about people who can’t afford health insurance? What about pre-existing and hereditary conditions? What about lifestyle premiums? What about premiums increasing with age or the development of a condition? What about maximum payouts per year in the events of developing a condition? What if the cost if your treatment goes over the threshold? good questions, but unless you are going to start paying my day rate
I think health insurance needs to be looked at, the US is probably a good place to workout best practices.
As for people who can't afford healthcare, the NHS should still be funded for A&E and people who can't afford healthcare.
In theory, the amount of money needed by the NHS would diminish as its user numbers fall.
They would also start to have some self funding through A&E functions.
I knew you were a consultant but now wondering if that is in the private healthcare sector? Hmmm lobbying perhaps?
Joking aside…the answers to those questions are absolutely key before we can adopt an insurance based approach for all except those who cannot afford it*
*how do we determine who that is? Where do we draw the line? Income or assets? Dependents? What about kids in foster care? Would there beca sliding scale or cliff edge on eligibility for “free” treatment?
Think of it like a dental service.
A NHS dentist (who actually sees NHS patients) will work on their NHS customer, they will fill teeth, take them out and do a little maintenance work.
The private customer has choices, white fillings, dental whitening, all the latest new stuff for maintaining a healthy mouth, in a room with soft music playing.
This could be the NHS way for those that can't afford private healthcare, the basics but no frills.
As for who qualifies who doesn't, if a person turns up to the NHS hospital without healthcare insurance they are treated, if they have healthcare insurance, the NHS should charge for the service provided.
No frills heart bypass surgery?
I’m jesting
For me it comes back to the NHS being there to save lives first and foremost. Once that has been clearly prioritised and funded, then within reason the rest can follow.
Maybe Private picks up all elective (though that does of course mean poor people without insurance cannot have that option).
I think the only way to really make it work is clear blue water between State/NHS and Private. I think the mixed model (and outsourcing within the NHS) is a drain on taxpayers and funding.
Which we can look to our neighbours, globally, as I have stated. But remember, it wasn't that long ago we had an NHS to be proud of."Oh I agree. I think the problems with the NHS are decades of ongoing tinkering and initiatives with a mixed economy of outsourced private providers and a lack of overall coordination and integration. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model. The key here is how they can make a profit while keeping costs the same as they currently are, no one seems able to explain how they would be able to do that. By implementing efficiencies, take Twitter as an example of this very thing. Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good! It’s also full of adverts for utter garbage, and massive amounts of bots. Add to that the introduction of a pay model that has reduced the interaction with ‘good’ tweets and prioritised anyone who is willing to pay for a blue tick. All of this might be true, but it takes nothing away from the fact the organisation is running just as efficiently with 80% less staff, saving a fortune $$$$$$$$$$$. Is it running just as efficiently? Do we know that? And even if the answer is yes, how would that approach work with healthcare? The covers need to come off, throwing money into a bottomless pit is the only quick win tactic on the table by any of the parties. I think the bottom line is simple, if people want a health service that works, the first thing they need to understand is the NHS is not "free". From this position, what do people expect and how much is it going to cost, is it now a more cost effective exercise to go private for an individual, we would then start to see the NHS taking more interest in staffing numbers, treatment times etc if they were seriously compromised on funding by people leaving their service. If a person has Private healthcare and needed A&E, they should pay for it through insurance, they need to start looking at how they package their offerings and start thinking about making some money as well as spending it. We need to stop being forced to pay for a service that is broken, it is not ethical to take money off people for something they can't use when it is needed. I advocate tax incentives to encourage people to take private healthcare, and lower the numbers of people using the NHS. Your last point you have said previously and I sympathise re tax incentives to go private a relieve pressure on NHS. But what about people who can’t afford health insurance? What about pre-existing and hereditary conditions? What about lifestyle premiums? What about premiums increasing with age or the development of a condition? What about maximum payouts per year in the events of developing a condition? What if the cost if your treatment goes over the threshold? good questions, but unless you are going to start paying my day rate
I think health insurance needs to be looked at, the US is probably a good place to workout best practices.
As for people who can't afford healthcare, the NHS should still be funded for A&E and people who can't afford healthcare.
In theory, the amount of money needed by the NHS would diminish as its user numbers fall.
They would also start to have some self funding through A&E functions.
I knew you were a consultant but now wondering if that is in the private healthcare sector? Hmmm lobbying perhaps?
Joking aside…the answers to those questions are absolutely key before we can adopt an insurance based approach for all except those who cannot afford it*
*how do we determine who that is? Where do we draw the line? Income or assets? Dependents? What about kids in foster care? Would there beca sliding scale or cliff edge on eligibility for “free” treatment?
Think of it like a dental service.
A NHS dentist (who actually sees NHS patients) will work on their NHS customer, they will fill teeth, take them out and do a little maintenance work.
The private customer has choices, white fillings, dental whitening, all the latest new stuff for maintaining a healthy mouth, in a room with soft music playing.
This could be the NHS way for those that can't afford private healthcare, the basics but no frills.
As for who qualifies who doesn't, if a person turns up to the NHS hospital without healthcare insurance they are treated, if they have healthcare insurance, the NHS should charge for the service provided.
No frills heart bypass surgery?
I’m jesting
For me it comes back to the NHS being there to save lives first and foremost. Once that has been clearly prioritised and funded, then within reason the rest can follow.
Maybe Private picks up all elective (though that does of course mean poor people without insurance cannot have that option).
I think the only way to really make it work is clear blue water between State/NHS and Private. I think the mixed model (and outsourcing within the NHS) is a drain on taxpayers and funding.
Which we can look to our neighbours, globally, as I have stated. But remember, it wasn't that long ago we had an NHS to be proud of."Only 14 years ago, in fact. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model. The key here is how they can make a profit while keeping costs the same as they currently are, no one seems able to explain how they would be able to do that. By implementing efficiencies, take Twitter as an example of this very thing. Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good! It’s also full of adverts for utter garbage, and massive amounts of bots. Add to that the introduction of a pay model that has reduced the interaction with ‘good’ tweets and prioritised anyone who is willing to pay for a blue tick. All of this might be true, but it takes nothing away from the fact the organisation is running just as efficiently with 80% less staff, saving a fortune $$$$$$$$$$$. Is it running just as efficiently? Do we know that? And even if the answer is yes, how would that approach work with healthcare? The covers need to come off, throwing money into a bottomless pit is the only quick win tactic on the table by any of the parties. I think the bottom line is simple, if people want a health service that works, the first thing they need to understand is the NHS is not "free". From this position, what do people expect and how much is it going to cost, is it now a more cost effective exercise to go private for an individual, we would then start to see the NHS taking more interest in staffing numbers, treatment times etc if they were seriously compromised on funding by people leaving their service. If a person has Private healthcare and needed A&E, they should pay for it through insurance, they need to start looking at how they package their offerings and start thinking about making some money as well as spending it. We need to stop being forced to pay for a service that is broken, it is not ethical to take money off people for something they can't use when it is needed. I advocate tax incentives to encourage people to take private healthcare, and lower the numbers of people using the NHS. Your last point you have said previously and I sympathise re tax incentives to go private a relieve pressure on NHS. But what about people who can’t afford health insurance? What about pre-existing and hereditary conditions? What about lifestyle premiums? What about premiums increasing with age or the development of a condition? What about maximum payouts per year in the events of developing a condition? What if the cost if your treatment goes over the threshold? good questions, but unless you are going to start paying my day rate
I think health insurance needs to be looked at, the US is probably a good place to workout best practices.
As for people who can't afford healthcare, the NHS should still be funded for A&E and people who can't afford healthcare.
In theory, the amount of money needed by the NHS would diminish as its user numbers fall.
They would also start to have some self funding through A&E functions.
I knew you were a consultant but now wondering if that is in the private healthcare sector? Hmmm lobbying perhaps?
Joking aside…the answers to those questions are absolutely key before we can adopt an insurance based approach for all except those who cannot afford it*
*how do we determine who that is? Where do we draw the line? Income or assets? Dependents? What about kids in foster care? Would there beca sliding scale or cliff edge on eligibility for “free” treatment?
Think of it like a dental service.
A NHS dentist (who actually sees NHS patients) will work on their NHS customer, they will fill teeth, take them out and do a little maintenance work.
The private customer has choices, white fillings, dental whitening, all the latest new stuff for maintaining a healthy mouth, in a room with soft music playing.
This could be the NHS way for those that can't afford private healthcare, the basics but no frills.
As for who qualifies who doesn't, if a person turns up to the NHS hospital without healthcare insurance they are treated, if they have healthcare insurance, the NHS should charge for the service provided.
No frills heart bypass surgery?
I’m jesting
For me it comes back to the NHS being there to save lives first and foremost. Once that has been clearly prioritised and funded, then within reason the rest can follow.
Maybe Private picks up all elective (though that does of course mean poor people without insurance cannot have that option).
I think the only way to really make it work is clear blue water between State/NHS and Private. I think the mixed model (and outsourcing within the NHS) is a drain on taxpayers and funding.
Which we can look to our neighbours, globally, as I have stated. But remember, it wasn't that long ago we had an NHS to be proud of.
Only 14 years ago, in fact."I think some of the problems were caused/exacerbated by PFI. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think of it like a dental service. A NHS dentist (who actually sees NHS patients) will work on their NHS customer, they will fill teeth, take them out and do a little maintenance work. The private customer has choices, white fillings, dental whitening, all the latest new stuff for maintaining a healthy mouth, in a room with soft music playing. This could be the NHS way for those that can't afford private healthcare, the basics but no frills. As for who qualifies who doesn't, if a person turns up to the NHS hospital without healthcare insurance they are treated, if they have healthcare insurance, the NHS should charge for the service provided. No frills heart bypass surgery? I’m jesting
For me it comes back to the NHS being there to save lives first and foremost. Once that has been clearly prioritised and funded, then within reason the rest can follow.
Maybe Private picks up all elective (though that does of course mean poor people without insurance cannot have that option).
I think the only way to really make it work is clear blue water between State/NHS and Private. I think the mixed model (and outsourcing within the NHS) is a drain on taxpayers and funding.
Which we can look to our neighbours, globally, as I have stated. But remember, it wasn't that long ago we had an NHS to be proud of.
Only 14 years ago, in fact.
I think some of the problems were caused/exacerbated by PFI."You are spot on with this, the labour government under Blair, screwed us over with huge amounts of debt. It doesn't stop people saying how great the NHS was 14 years ago, but it was all smoke and mirrors. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model. The key here is how they can make a profit while keeping costs the same as they currently are, no one seems able to explain how they would be able to do that. By implementing efficiencies, take Twitter as an example of this very thing. Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good! It’s also full of adverts for utter garbage, and massive amounts of bots. Add to that the introduction of a pay model that has reduced the interaction with ‘good’ tweets and prioritised anyone who is willing to pay for a blue tick. All of this might be true, but it takes nothing away from the fact the organisation is running just as efficiently with 80% less staff, saving a fortune $$$$$$$$$$$. Is it running just as efficiently? Do we know that? And even if the answer is yes, how would that approach work with healthcare? The covers need to come off, throwing money into a bottomless pit is the only quick win tactic on the table by any of the parties. I think the bottom line is simple, if people want a health service that works, the first thing they need to understand is the NHS is not "free". From this position, what do people expect and how much is it going to cost, is it now a more cost effective exercise to go private for an individual, we would then start to see the NHS taking more interest in staffing numbers, treatment times etc if they were seriously compromised on funding by people leaving their service. If a person has Private healthcare and needed A&E, they should pay for it through insurance, they need to start looking at how they package their offerings and start thinking about making some money as well as spending it. We need to stop being forced to pay for a service that is broken, it is not ethical to take money off people for something they can't use when it is needed. I advocate tax incentives to encourage people to take private healthcare, and lower the numbers of people using the NHS. Your last point you have said previously and I sympathise re tax incentives to go private a relieve pressure on NHS. But what about people who can’t afford health insurance? What about pre-existing and hereditary conditions? What about lifestyle premiums? What about premiums increasing with age or the development of a condition? What about maximum payouts per year in the events of developing a condition? What if the cost if your treatment goes over the threshold? good questions, but unless you are going to start paying my day rate
I think health insurance needs to be looked at, the US is probably a good place to workout best practices.
As for people who can't afford healthcare, the NHS should still be funded for A&E and people who can't afford healthcare.
In theory, the amount of money needed by the NHS would diminish as its user numbers fall.
They would also start to have some self funding through A&E functions.
I knew you were a consultant but now wondering if that is in the private healthcare sector? Hmmm lobbying perhaps?
Joking aside…the answers to those questions are absolutely key before we can adopt an insurance based approach for all except those who cannot afford it*
*how do we determine who that is? Where do we draw the line? Income or assets? Dependents? What about kids in foster care? Would there beca sliding scale or cliff edge on eligibility for “free” treatment?
Think of it like a dental service.
A NHS dentist (who actually sees NHS patients) will work on their NHS customer, they will fill teeth, take them out and do a little maintenance work.
The private customer has choices, white fillings, dental whitening, all the latest new stuff for maintaining a healthy mouth, in a room with soft music playing.
This could be the NHS way for those that can't afford private healthcare, the basics but no frills.
As for who qualifies who doesn't, if a person turns up to the NHS hospital without healthcare insurance they are treated, if they have healthcare insurance, the NHS should charge for the service provided.
No frills heart bypass surgery?
I’m jesting
For me it comes back to the NHS being there to save lives first and foremost. Once that has been clearly prioritised and funded, then within reason the rest can follow.
Maybe Private picks up all elective (though that does of course mean poor people without insurance cannot have that option).
I think the only way to really make it work is clear blue water between State/NHS and Private. I think the mixed model (and outsourcing within the NHS) is a drain on taxpayers and funding.
Which we can look to our neighbours, globally, as I have stated. But remember, it wasn't that long ago we had an NHS to be proud of.
Only 14 years ago, in fact.
I think some of the problems were caused/exacerbated by PFI."They definitely have been but that doesn’t alter the fact that only 14 years ago the NHS was ranked by the Commonwealth Fund as the most efficient in the world, waiting times were at an all time low, and patient satisfaction at an all time high. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not evidence, it’s an anecdote. So, please enlighten me - where is the public sector a model of efficiency? Is nobody going to answer this one? Any good examples of public sector efficiency? Or maybe there aren't any. I'll respond in an indirect way. Hinchingbrooke hospital was a pilot business model run hospital for the NHS. Circa had to give up its incomplete contract, debt-ridden. Thus proving the business model is an inefficient way of managing a trust. All it proves is that particular model didn't work. That's not to say that another hybrid model wouldn't work for the NHS. Private business responds fast to changing circumstances, it has to in order to survive. Public organisations can just keep taking the taxpayers £££ What would be the hybrid model you think would achieve better results than we currently have for the same, or less, cost? Maybe Public Sector = infrastucture, training, public healthcare policies. Private Sector = health provision, employment, drug procurement, day to day running of GPs and hospitals. Just need to find the right model, but with flexibility to modify and adapt. What makes you think the private sector will be able to run GP surgeries and hospitals more efficiently than is currently done, whilst making a profit? Well every other FTSE company runs a business and makes a profit. It's because they are run by business professionals. Look at drugs, a cornerstone of healthcare, AstraZeneca a hugely successful £200bn company, now the largest in the FTSE. Supplies drugs, undertakes R&D, employs 100,000 staff, pays taxes. A model. The key here is how they can make a profit while keeping costs the same as they currently are, no one seems able to explain how they would be able to do that. By implementing efficiencies, take Twitter as an example of this very thing. Musk sacked about 80% of the workforce, he was told it would collapse under such cuts, but it is still running as it was but with 1500 staff members, not the 8000 he inherited. People are the most expensive cost, replace them with lean processes, new operating models devised by the private sector and the headcount will come down. The more I think about it the more the idea of having the NHS support private healthcare sector makes sense. Twitter’s user base has fallen 30%. May be nothing to do with staff (and ability to innovate) but not doing do good! It’s also full of adverts for utter garbage, and massive amounts of bots. Add to that the introduction of a pay model that has reduced the interaction with ‘good’ tweets and prioritised anyone who is willing to pay for a blue tick. All of this might be true, but it takes nothing away from the fact the organisation is running just as efficiently with 80% less staff, saving a fortune $$$$$$$$$$$. Is it running just as efficiently? Do we know that? And even if the answer is yes, how would that approach work with healthcare? The covers need to come off, throwing money into a bottomless pit is the only quick win tactic on the table by any of the parties. I think the bottom line is simple, if people want a health service that works, the first thing they need to understand is the NHS is not "free". From this position, what do people expect and how much is it going to cost, is it now a more cost effective exercise to go private for an individual, we would then start to see the NHS taking more interest in staffing numbers, treatment times etc if they were seriously compromised on funding by people leaving their service. If a person has Private healthcare and needed A&E, they should pay for it through insurance, they need to start looking at how they package their offerings and start thinking about making some money as well as spending it. We need to stop being forced to pay for a service that is broken, it is not ethical to take money off people for something they can't use when it is needed. I advocate tax incentives to encourage people to take private healthcare, and lower the numbers of people using the NHS. Your last point you have said previously and I sympathise re tax incentives to go private a relieve pressure on NHS. But what about people who can’t afford health insurance? What about pre-existing and hereditary conditions? What about lifestyle premiums? What about premiums increasing with age or the development of a condition? What about maximum payouts per year in the events of developing a condition? What if the cost if your treatment goes over the threshold? good questions, but unless you are going to start paying my day rate
I think health insurance needs to be looked at, the US is probably a good place to workout best practices.
As for people who can't afford healthcare, the NHS should still be funded for A&E and people who can't afford healthcare.
In theory, the amount of money needed by the NHS would diminish as its user numbers fall.
They would also start to have some self funding through A&E functions.
I knew you were a consultant but now wondering if that is in the private healthcare sector? Hmmm lobbying perhaps?
Joking aside…the answers to those questions are absolutely key before we can adopt an insurance based approach for all except those who cannot afford it*
*how do we determine who that is? Where do we draw the line? Income or assets? Dependents? What about kids in foster care? Would there beca sliding scale or cliff edge on eligibility for “free” treatment?
Think of it like a dental service.
A NHS dentist (who actually sees NHS patients) will work on their NHS customer, they will fill teeth, take them out and do a little maintenance work.
The private customer has choices, white fillings, dental whitening, all the latest new stuff for maintaining a healthy mouth, in a room with soft music playing.
This could be the NHS way for those that can't afford private healthcare, the basics but no frills.
As for who qualifies who doesn't, if a person turns up to the NHS hospital without healthcare insurance they are treated, if they have healthcare insurance, the NHS should charge for the service provided.
No frills heart bypass surgery?
I’m jesting
For me it comes back to the NHS being there to save lives first and foremost. Once that has been clearly prioritised and funded, then within reason the rest can follow.
Maybe Private picks up all elective (though that does of course mean poor people without insurance cannot have that option).
I think the only way to really make it work is clear blue water between State/NHS and Private. I think the mixed model (and outsourcing within the NHS) is a drain on taxpayers and funding.
Which we can look to our neighbours, globally, as I have stated. But remember, it wasn't that long ago we had an NHS to be proud of.
Only 14 years ago, in fact.
I think some of the problems were caused/exacerbated by PFI.
They definitely have been but that doesn’t alter the fact that only 14 years ago the NHS was ranked by the Commonwealth Fund as the most efficient in the world, waiting times were at an all time low, and patient satisfaction at an all time high."the reason things looked good is the labour government used private capital funding to pay for everything, and was booted out before the damage of paying it back started to kick in. Smoke and mirrors | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think of it like a dental service. A NHS dentist (who actually sees NHS patients) will work on their NHS customer, they will fill teeth, take them out and do a little maintenance work. The private customer has choices, white fillings, dental whitening, all the latest new stuff for maintaining a healthy mouth, in a room with soft music playing. This could be the NHS way for those that can't afford private healthcare, the basics but no frills. As for who qualifies who doesn't, if a person turns up to the NHS hospital without healthcare insurance they are treated, if they have healthcare insurance, the NHS should charge for the service provided. No frills heart bypass surgery? I’m jesting
For me it comes back to the NHS being there to save lives first and foremost. Once that has been clearly prioritised and funded, then within reason the rest can follow.
Maybe Private picks up all elective (though that does of course mean poor people without insurance cannot have that option).
I think the only way to really make it work is clear blue water between State/NHS and Private. I think the mixed model (and outsourcing within the NHS) is a drain on taxpayers and funding.
Which we can look to our neighbours, globally, as I have stated. But remember, it wasn't that long ago we had an NHS to be proud of.
Only 14 years ago, in fact.
I think some of the problems were caused/exacerbated by PFI.
You are spot on with this, the labour government under Blair, screwed us over with huge amounts of debt.
It doesn't stop people saying how great the NHS was 14 years ago, but it was all smoke and mirrors."I have worked for the NHS since 1998. It has never been so bad. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
