Jump to content

Junior Doctors row: 98% vote to strike


Recommended Posts

This interactive chart shows health spending per person in each of the UK countries between 2004/05 and 2010/11.

 

It was Labour government between those dates, the figures I posted show the per capita increase since the conservatives came to office.

 

Is that because under Labour, growth in the economy was small, but spending on health stayed high?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that because under Labour, growth in the economy was small, but spending on health stayed high?

 

Growth in the economy wasn't small under labour but it was lead by consumer and government debt which lead to the inevitable dip in spending which started before Labour left office.

 

---------- Post added 16-02-2016 at 10:04 ----------

 

And that's relevant to this thread because? This is about why doctors are striking so unless you want to argue that they are striking because of too many immigrants then this isn't the right thread.

 

Its not relevant to the topic but it is relevant to the post I answered.

 

---------- Post added 16-02-2016 at 10:06 ----------

 

Is this some sort of "stealth" knowledge, because you're doing a very good job of hiding it behind a veil of ignorance.

 

No it's just a difference of opinion, you think everything is the fault of the Tories and I think they are trying to clean the mess up left by labour, whilst still making mistakes of their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it's just a difference of opinion, you think everything is the fault of the Tories and I think they are trying to clean the mess up left by labour, whilst still making mistakes of their own.

 

Nope, you're showing you ignorance again. Just because I think that Hunt is an awful Sec. State for Health, doesn't mean that I'm anti-Tory or even that I'm pro-Labour.

 

Back to the drawing board for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, you're showing you ignorance again. Just because I think that Hunt is an awful Sec. State for Health, doesn't mean that I'm anti-Tory or even that I'm pro-Labour.

 

Back to the drawing board for you.

 

You've shown your ignorance throughout the topic, only changing your stance when I posted the links that clearly proved your ignorance.

 

Since the topic as descended into name calling I will leave you to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've shown your ignorance throughout the topic, only changing your stance when I posted the links that clearly proved your ignorance.

 

Since the topic as descended into name calling I will leave you to it.

 

 

 

I really do not think that I've descended to name calling, I thought I was accurately describing you. After all you did say that you believed that I thought that everything was the fault of the Tories, and that the NHS wasn't in the middle of a spending crisis.

 

These commentss do suggest that you are ignorant of the facts, something that I believe is important to bear in mind when reading the rest of your posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funding crisis? NHS funding grows every year.

 

NHS net expenditure has increased from £64.173 billion in 2003/04 to £113.300bn in 2014/15. Planned expenditure for 2015/16 is £116.574bn.

Health expenditure per capita in England has risen from £1,841 in 2009/10 to £1,994 in 2013/14.

 

Thats highly misleading though.

 

A straightforward increase in the amount spent needs to take into account:

 

1. Inflation.

2. Whether you are providing additional services.

3. Whether there are more people to whom those services are provided.

4. How that money is spent.

 

If funding has increased in lines with inflation os slightly above, then it means much less if there is a greater demand on those services in terms of treatments offered (new drugs) more people needing healthcare (dementia , obesity, cancer) and a larger population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a pointless point to argue. The only thing that is constant about healthcare is that there will never be enough money no matter how much is spent. The same is true of all the other public services that are taking out of the pot of finite taxpayers money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a pointless point to argue. The only thing that is constant about healthcare is that there will never be enough money no matter how much is spent. The same is true of all the other public services that are taking out of the pot of finite taxpayers money.

 

Is that aimed at me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a pointless point to argue. The only thing that is constant about healthcare is that there will never be enough money no matter how much is spent. The same is true of all the other public services that are taking out of the pot of finite taxpayers money.

 

I don't think that it's pointless, I think it's the crux of the issue.

 

We want a Premier League healthcare system, but we pay a Championship level of funding towards it. So along the way compromises have to be made, Hunt is expecting the junior doctors to make the compromises on this occasion.

 

We already spend less than other comparable countries on our healthcare, so there is scope to reorganise government spending without crippling the nations economy. If there was the desire to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.