I1L2T3 Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 There’s little point in it being cheap, when its crap, changing it would give us a significantly better service for a little more, or a better service for the same. Many parts of the NHS are actually very good. Some parts of it need radical improvement of course. That the NHS is performing badly is a myth. You can read more here: http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/topics/nhs-reform/mythbusters/nhs-performance But, let's imagine we did adopt the Swiss system and increased life expectancy by a few years. How would we afford even more people living longer. I thought you wanted the population to reduce? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Many parts of the NHS are actually very good. Some parts of it need radical improvement of course. That the NHS is performing badly is a myth. You can read more here: http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/topics/nhs-reform/mythbusters/nhs-performance But, let's imagine we did adopt the Swiss system and increased life expectancy by a few years. How would we afford even more people living longer. I thought you wanted the population to reduce? It’s not about extending life, it’s about quality of life, we have people stuck on benefits for years waiting for NHS care, we need people diagnosing and treating quickly and the NHS appears incapable of that level of service. If you need physiotherapy you will have to wait several months just for your first appointment, we need to treat people quickly and get them back to work. The NHS is an inefficient money wasting machine much like the rest of the public sector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeaFan Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 It’s not about extending life, it’s about quality of life, we have people stuck on benefits for years waiting for NHS care, we need people diagnosing and treating quickly and the NHS appears incapable of that level of service. If you need physiotherapy you will have to wait several months just for your first appointment, we need to treat people quickly and get them back to work. The NHS is an inefficient money wasting machine much like the rest of the public sector. You start with your conclusions don't you, and then discard any evidence that doesn't fit. You'll never learn much useful I'm afraid. I doubt you're very employable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 You start with your conclusions don't you, and then discard any evidence that doesn't fit. You'll never learn much useful I'm afraid. I doubt you're very employable. :loopy::loopy::loopy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 It’s not about extending life, it’s about quality of life, we have people stuck on benefits for years waiting for NHS care, we need people diagnosing and treating quickly and the NHS appears incapable of that level of service. If you need physiotherapy you will have to wait several months just for your first appointment, we need to treat people quickly and get them back to work. The NHS is an inefficient money wasting machine much like the rest of the public sector. If you improve quality of life then people will live longer. The age profile of the population will skew further towards being aged. The costs of care will increase to swallow more of our GDP. The population will increase but you want it to reduce. Having nailed that shall we move onto education and the removal of a state monopoly. How will that work? Do the parents meet the fees? If so how much will they have to pay and what will be the impact on education spend as a percentage of GDP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 It’s not about extending life, it’s about quality of life, we have people stuck on benefits for years waiting for NHS care, we need people diagnosing and treating quickly and the NHS appears incapable of that level of service. If you need physiotherapy you will have to wait several months just for your first appointment, we need to treat people quickly and get them back to work. All my family have had by far and away the greatest proportion of their NHS treatment (and therefore cost to the taxpayer) after they've retired. How do we get them back into work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 That was put to you twice on the other thread, but you dodged it. Are you going to answer it in here? Or do you usual disappearing act when anything you write is questioned? no im not going to answer it here :hihi: so what about the other suggestions i posted are they not workable either oh and lets hear some from you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 If you improve quality of life then people will live longer. And work longer and pay tax longer and take fewer day of sick. The age profile of the population will skew further towards being aged. Nothing wrong with an healthy aging population that is capable of working. The costs of care will increase to swallow more of our GDP. The cost of care will reduce because people will be diagnosed and treated quickly and efficiently, trying to do a job on the cheap always cost more in the long run. The population will increase but you want it to reduce. It will reduce because we will have a healthy population working instead of sitting idle on benefits whilst immigrants come here to do the work. ---------- Post added 01-05-2013 at 07:08 ---------- All my family have had by far and away the greatest proportion of their NHS treatment (and therefore cost to the taxpayer) after they've retired. How do we get them back into work? People will work if they are healthy and fit enough to work, if they aren't they won't work, if someone is off work sick maybe with a bad back, they need diagnosing and treating quickly to get them back to work, have them on waiting lists for months just makes the problem harder to treat and leaves them on benefits for longer thereby costing more in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 And work longer and pay tax longer and take fewer day of sick. Nothing wrong with an healthy aging population that is capable of working. The cost of care will reduce because people will be diagnosed and treated quickly and efficiently, trying to do a job on the cheap always cost more in the long run. It will reduce because we will have a healthy population working instead of sitting idle on benefits whilst immigrants come here to do the work. ---------- Post added 01-05-2013 at 07:08 ---------- People will work if they are healthy and fit enough to work, if they aren't they won't work, if someone is off work sick maybe with a bad back, they need diagnosing and treating quickly to get them back to work, have them on waiting lists for months just makes the problem harder to treat and leaves them on benefits for longer thereby costing more in the long run. On the contrary the cold hard facts suggest that it will cost us more. I've already demonstrated this. The Netherlands has much the same system as Switzerland and their spend and a percentage of GDP in 2010 was 12%. That is 2.4% more than ours in the same year. It will cost us more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Labour's Lead shrinking: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/04/what-lies-behind-labours-shrinking-poll-lead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.