Jim Graham Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 The NHS spends around 8% of GDP to provide healthcare to all citizens. Compare that to the percentage of GDP spent on healthcare in other countries, the coverage in those countries, and the outcomes. The NHS could be more efficient but in comparison to other systems it works very well overall. And yes, I have had experience of other healthcare systems and as a patient they were bureaucratic and inefficient. The UK's GDP has gone down over the last 4 years so the NHS cost should go down accordingly. The Tories have not cut the cost of the NHS yet so the % against GDP is rising automatically. It's the NHS' own internal inflation and bureaucracy that is causing cuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 After all, we've got plenty to spare. Seems so. Enough to hike up the cost of the firework display at the Olympic games, enough for £50billion more quantitative easing ( "the last resort of desperate governments when all other policies have failed" - G Osborne), enough to pay A4E millions a year for failing to meet targets. Don't come the old "we're bankrupt" excuse, there's plenty of money for some things! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Cameron 'wants' what Tory party donors and financial supporters want. And given that private healthcare companies and private health insurance companies are all over the party like a bad rash it should be clear what the future might hold. For the truly blinkered may not have noticed the Tories have attempted to unleash privatisation of the NHS on an unprecedented scale. It wasn't even in their manifesto. Nobody voted for it. And they'll get their come uppance. That said, we shouldn't forget Labour's role in the run up to this. They heavily supported all kinds of private sector activity in the NHS, supported internal competition, and put systems and processes in place that were evolutionary natural precursors to what the Torys have attempted to do. Both parties should be ashamed. The LibDems probably too but heaven knows what they stand for these days and I can't be bothered to work it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libuse Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Obviously the royal colleges are vested interests and will resist change. The idea that they work in the best interests of patients is laughable. I have personal experience of dealing with some of the brightest and best from a number of royal colleges and they always put themselves before all else. As for the cost of the change being £3.4bn; where do you get that figure from? Andy Burnham? Can I just point out that Labour never left the NHS alone in their 13 years. They introduced initiative after initiative and reorganisation after reorganisation and a £12bn IT system the royal colleges and everyone else in the NHS didn't want. Why on earth would you defend the Conservative's catastrophic plans for dismantling the NHS by quoting some of the attacks on the NHS carried out by the Labour Party in recent years? It's a bit of a non-sequitur. Also, if the royal colleges have a vested interest and resist change, then their opinion on what Labour did is equally irrelevant isn't it? For what it's worth, I don't think the NHS was well looked after by Labour, I think it is about to be destroyed by the Conservatives. If you don't like the £3.4bn figure, what about Manchester Business School's figure of £2 - £3bn? Still a difficult one to justify isn't it? You still haven't explained how these reforms will make the NHS more efficient or better for patients Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Graham Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Seems so. Enough to hike up the cost of the firework display at the Olympic games, enough for £50billion more quantitative easing ( "the last resort of desperate governments when all other policies have failed" - G Osborne), enough to pay A4E millions a year for failing to meet targets. Don't come the old "we're bankrupt" excuse, there's plenty of money for some things! Do you have any idea what Quantitative Easing is? Thought not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Graham Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Why on earth would you defend the Conservative's catastrophic plans for dismantling the NHS by quoting some of the attacks on the NHS carried out by the Labour Party in recent years? It's a bit of a non-sequitur. Also, if the royal colleges have a vested interest and resist change, then their opinion on what Labour did is equally irrelevant isn't it? For what it's worth, I don't think the NHS was well looked after by Labour, I think it is about to be destroyed by the Conservatives. If you don't like the £3.4bn figure, what about Manchester Business School's figure of £2 - £3bn? Still a difficult one to justify isn't it? You still haven't explained how these reforms will make the NHS more efficient or better for patients The British people will not allow the NHS to be destroyed as the loony left claim. The Tories are not daft. They know it's a re-election issue and they won't jeopardise that. But, something has to be done about the cost of it. There will always be an inexhaustible demand for anything that is free but there isn't an inexhaustible supply of money to pay for it. I know that is going to come as a terrible shock to many but it's a basic truth that Labour continue to deny. I don't think these reforms will improve things for patients but I belkieve they are meant to streamline the overbearing bureaucracy and take layers of admin out of the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Graham Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Cameron 'wants' what Tory party donors and financial supporters want. And given that private healthcare companies and private health insurance companies are all over the party like a bad rash it should be clear what the future might hold. For the truly blinkered may not have noticed the Tories have attempted to unleash privatisation of the NHS on an unprecedented scale. It wasn't even in their manifesto. Nobody voted for it. And they'll get their come uppance. That said, we shouldn't forget Labour's role in the run up to this. They heavily supported all kinds of private sector activity in the NHS, supported internal competition, and put systems and processes in place that were evolutionary natural precursors to what the Torys have attempted to do. Both parties should be ashamed. The LibDems probably too but heaven knows what they stand for these days and I can't be bothered to work it out. What Cameron wants is to get re-elected and nothing is going to be allowed to get in the way of that. The NHS is riddled with private companies already but it's truth that doesn't fit well with Labour's argument. Drugs, equipment, cleaning, uniforms, meals, training and who knows what else are already provided by private companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuy Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Just remember David Cameron and his family use(d) the NHS themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libuse Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 The NHS is riddled with private companies already but it's truth that doesn't fit well with Labour's argument. Drugs, equipment, cleaning, uniforms, meals, training and who knows what else are already provided by private companies. You can add to your list premises, GP practices, dental practices, security, bank staff, commissioned bed spaces in independent hospitals, ISTCs......lots and lots of private sector exists in the NHS. However, the truth remains that currently, no matter how complex or high risk a patient presents as, they will receive treatment unless there are sound clinical reasons not to do so (as long as that treatment is currently funded by their PCT). So why does the new bill have no geographical obligation written into it? I can't imagine that was an oversight. It is planned, deliberate measure, with horrendous implications Furthermore, why the emphasis on "streamlining bureaucracy" when the new structure puts into place additional levels of bureaucracy, not to mention what will be England's biggest ever quango? I don't see the streamlining there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 What Cameron wants is to get re-elected and nothing is going to be allowed to get in the way of that. The NHS is riddled with private companies already but it's truth that doesn't fit well with Labour's argument. Drugs, equipment, cleaning, uniforms, meals, training and who knows what else are already provided by private companies. Cameron couldn't give a stuff if he gets re-elected. What Cameron wants is the re-introduction of the awarding of heriditary peerages to outgoing PMs. Read previous issues of Private Eye to understand what really makes that bumbling baffoon Cameron really tick along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.