You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Plus Scotland’s had tax raising powers for yonks now and they *still* haven’t put income tax up to be significantly more than the rest of uk.
My P60 would disagree with that, SRIT is a thing. Unless you want them to tax everyone to the hilt which nobody has proposed.
Couple of humble brags on previous page from a couple of wealthy/talented/gifted members who grace these pages with their presence.
I call both bullshit.
If they were both wealthy, as they claim, why not become paid-up subscribers?
With their wealth, the subscription costs would be an irrelevance to them.
Yawn.
kimbers
The oldies are screwing us all
(prays for snow, or just a cold snap)
Kimbers - don't get carried away; those numbers are meaningless.
Total sample size; sample size for each age group; unequal age bands; split by each group by gender - would be helpful in attaching any meaning or relevance.
...
Well there you have it. The reason we are in the shit right now is the likes of daveylad. Oh sorry, was that a personal attack?
The English are selfish bastards who would rather vote to keep another 1p in their wallets and purses than pay extra to fund public services
Thanks for that. Popping back a couple of pages to report your post.
those numbers are meaningless
Come on Frank, show us one single study/poll/survey that suggests anything other than older people are far more likely to support both Brexit and the Conservatives… taking away rights and opportunities from young people.
If they were both wealthy, as they claim, why not become paid-up subscribers?
With their wealth, the subscription costs would be an irrelevance to them.
How d'you think they got rich? It's pretty well known that the rich got rich by being tight and are less likely to give to charity, pay for stuff they don't have to etc.
Kelvin, I'm one of the 'older people' and I can state categorically that almost everyone I know in my age bracket are unequivocal remainers, irrespective of their party political allegiance.
How many 'older people' do you know and how much/little do you know about their political views?
Polls/studies/surveys are much devalued as a result of their proven unreliability.
Are you seriously suggesting that 'older voters' are deliberately taking away 'rights and opportunities from younger people'?
In answering that question it would be helpful if you could explain what you mean by 'taking away rights and opportunities.....'; what rights, what opportunities?
Well that's timely. The Observer has learned that patient data has been sold to US pharma Giants by the NHS.
You keep clinging to your fantasy that's it's not for sale though.
Of course it's for sale. Under free market capitalism, everything is, if the price is right.
cromoly - think we're both agreed that their claims of wealth are bullshit.
I was 50 this year and have never voted conservative, and hope to christ I never have to. But, and it’s a big but, suppose one day something worse comes along and looks like it might take your seat?
If you're juggling with the morality of 130,000 dead benefits claimants and the shitshow that is Breixt, may I suggest that we've hit rock bottom?
Near 50 and never more anti labour. If I was poor and/or northern maybe, or expect the state to support me, but im none of these. Boris it is 🙂
Wipe yer tears haters!!
You seem nice. Hope that you don't catch some disease that requires expensive medication.
How many ‘older people’ do you know and how much/little do you know about their political views?
Plenty. But I still only know a tiny number compared to the millions of voters. Just like you. Your experience does not equal data. Older people are FAR more likely to be proBrexit and proTory, both of which are removing rights and opportunities from younger people. Every single survey shows this. Show me some ‘meaningful’ numbers that suggest otherwise.
Are you seriously suggesting that ‘older voters’ are deliberately taking away ‘rights and opportunities from younger people’?
Some think that they are not. Some think that it’ll only effect young people that they don’t know. Some don’t care even when it effects young people they do know. Some think the young have ‘got it too easy these days’. Some think it is a price worth paying, if they don’t have to hear bilingual people in their market towns. Some think it is ‘all about priorities’, and their priorities are different to that of younger folk.
The English are selfish bastards who would rather vote to keep another 1p in their wallets and purses than pay extra to fund public services
Thanks for that. Popping back a couple of pages to report your post.
Did you even bother to read the post preceding it?
think we’re both agreed that their claims of wealth are bullshit.
Maybe - I'll stay on their good side just in case they aren't - and they decide to spread it around.
If you want the government to concentrate wealth, carve up the nation's services and protect your own personal empire (although that's only relevant if you're absolutely loaded) then it's the Tories.
If you want to reverse the sickening downward slog of free-market economics, support the struggling, and give the country a direction and a chance then it's Labour.
Corbyn is a good man, a fighter and exactly what we need right now - despite his character assassination from the centrists/right (Guardian you are culpable) who have helped undermine him - he's still here offering the majority of people a direction of hope.
Oh and see what is happening to the Libdem's? Pretty much falling apart because they based their entire campaign on Brexit, Jo's ego and the silly idea that centrism would be a vote winner in these desperate times was always misguided and distracting.
(Oh and all you tactical voters - fair play.)
You seem nice
What he seemed like was a Troll trying to trigger the snowflakes*
*AKA people not totally devoid of empathy/morality and who want to see an improvement in the quality of life for the vast majority
f they were both wealthy, as they claim, why not become paid-up subscribers?
With their wealth, the subscription costs would be an irrelevance to them
The subscription cost is as irrelevant to me as most people who post here I would imagine. However I have no interest in paying it and would rather give the money to something more worthwhile thanks.
It’s pretty well known that the rich got rich by being tight and are less likely to give to charity, pay for stuff they don’t have to etc.
Nice generalisation. You haven't got a clue what I do but you carry on thinking that if it makes you feel better.
What he seemed like was a Troll trying to trigger the snowflakes
Sadly not a troll I suspect. There are a lot of people who think like that. I am surrounded by tories at work and where I live and the general thinking is that the poor/less fortunate have simply not worked or tried as hard as they have.
They have no ****ing clue that they are where they are mostly down to luck and privilege, no clue at all.
I'm 67, a remainer and probably going to vote Labour although I did want to vote Liberal but that may allow the Conservatives into power so I will do a bit of tactical voting. I have very strong concerns regarding the leadership of the Labour Party and their policies however I am far more worried about the Conservatives winning with their lack of policies and the threat of leaving the EU with no deal.
I do feel however that some comments on here regarding Thatcher and blaming her for the destruction of British industry is a bit of a myth, British industry destroyed itself during the 60's and 70's through bad management and the overwhelming power of the unions. The other thing that many younger people forget and certainly didn't experience was the failure of nationalization it didn't work then and I doubt very much if it will work in the future, if Labour do get into power.
One question, if the coal mines had been kept open over the last thirty years would Corbyn be fighting to close them now because of climate change or is he secretly thankful to Thatcher that she did the job for him?
The Times - Amazon ready to cash in on free access to NHS data (paywall)
More info on this Twitter thread
The NHS isn't even for sale, it's being given away free.
One question, if the coal mines had been kept open over the last thirty years would Corbyn be fighting to close them now because of climate change or is he secretly thankful to Thatcher that she did the job for him?
I'd assume he'd close them down, but in an orderly manner and invest heavily in a transition to green industries to replace the loss of jobs from the mine closures.
Essentially what the 2019 Manifesto states.
You do realise that the NHS funding has risen an average of 4% pa since it’s inception. This Tory government has averaged .5% pa.
Indeed. Yet in spite of that desperate level of underfunding Labour decided on a wafer thin increase of 3bn. Labour are also going to chronically underfund the NHS and it's not because they don't have the cash - they claim they had 58bn spare.
Have you read anything written by any of the current government about how provision of, and payment for, healthcare should be transformed in future.
People have spent the last three decades saying the Tory's are going to privatize the NHS during every election campaign (and at times in between). All that crying wolf means nobody believes they are going to do it this time - to the point where people trust the Torys on the NHS more than Labour.
This is not just another Tory Government about to be elected,
So all the other times you said they were going to privatise the NHS they didn't. But this time they really, really are, you really, really promise.
Not an easy message to sell!
I’d assume he’d close them down,
You're right - Harold Wilson closed over twice as many mines as Thatcher. Between WW1 and today we all basically stopped using Coal and switched to Gas/Oil/Nuclear.
Every prime minister from WW1 onwards closed mines, by the time Thatcher took over the days of coal were already well in the past.
the silly idea that centrism would be a vote winner in these desperate times
It’s FPTP, so in most seats, as the election nears, people swing towards the top two candidates in their seats. In an ideal world… most of these swing people in Tory/Labour battle grounds would be coming over to Labour… but many are going to the Conservatives, even if they are against Brexit and don’t want Johnson in no10. If Labour could appeal to a wider a section of the public, they would be walking this election. If the take away from losing this election is “centrism* is a vote loser, let’s further abandon voters who aren’t left wing enough for us”, there won’t be a Labour government again in our lifetimes.
[* whatever the hell that means]
People have spent the last three decades saying the Tory’s are going to privatize the NHS
If by “people” you mean people who are now ministers, then you have got the point, well done.
So all the other times you said they were going to privatise the NHS they didn’t. But this time they really, really are, you really, really promise.
Not an easy message to sell!
Someone gives you a specific example of privatisation in the NHS (plasma), and you stick your heads back in the sand, talk about “crying wolf”, and repeat the propaganda. Multiple governments have privatised vital chunks of the NHS… it is a process not a one off event.
It’s FPTP, so in most seats, as the election nears, people swing towards the top two candidates in their seats. In an ideal world… most of these swing people in Tory/Labour battle grounds would be coming over to Labour… but many are going to the Conservatives, even if they are against Brexit and don’t want Johnson in no10. If Labour could appeal to a wider a section of the public, they would be waking this election.
This. The Tory party is an omnishambles and has been for years. (Even if they weren't 9 years in Government *alone* would be enough to condemn most Governments to lose just out of voter feeling it's 'time for change'.)
Any Labour leadership since Foot would be looking at a landslide right now. The only thing that could have saved the Torys is Corbyn/Abbot/McDonnell.
Multiple governments have privatised vital chunks of the NHS… it is a process not a one off event.
I'd agree. The NHS is effectively 7pc "private". 1pc of that was done under various Tory Governments over the years 6pc under the Blair government.
So you're not saying the NHS will be completely privatized. You're saying some stuff may be outsourced as it always has been. eg the NHS doesn't mine the minerals that go into drugs.
Now you've qualified your claim, what percentage of the NHS are you estimating will be private after a Blue term in office, and what percentage are you estimating will be private after a Corbyn/Momentum term in office?
Corbyn & co may have baggage but the rw press painted Milliband as dangerous commie too, even tho some of his 'redisst' policies have since been adopted by the Tories!
Didn’t someone on here say that it costs £80 to change a lightbulb at the hospital his wife works in?
Privatisation in action.
rw press painted Milliband as dangerous commie
IIRC I recall one very lame attempt at a weak story about his Dad which fizzled out straight away because it was obviously bollocks. Then there was the bacon roll story which can't have cost him many votes and (critically) quashed rumours among the Labour core vote that he was Jewish! In short the media had nothing on him.
In contrast there has been an endless stream of true, verifiable stuff about the current leadership which they admit they actually did. ...and because it's true it's been widely reported on Radio an TV, which people see in large numbers, in contrast to the RW press which very few people read.
Premier Icon
zippykonaSubscriber
Didn’t someone on here say that it costs £80 to change a lightbulb at the hospital his wife works in?
Privatisation in action.
Not really. It’s just badly negotiated 3P/ PFI. Without which none of those new hospitals would have been built.
Im not apologising for the financing model - it can work as long as one side doesn’t have access to significantly better lawyers.
Didn’t someone on here say that it costs £80 to change a lightbulb at the hospital his wife works in?
Privatisation in action.
Are you arguing that only a state owned entity can affordably change a lightbulb? Seems unlikely since most of us work for private firms that have their lightbulbs changed without drama.
Or are you arguing that state owned entities are rubbish at negotiating contracts and private hospitals get their bulbs changed at lower cost?
Every prime minister from WW1 onwards closed mines, by the time Thatcher took over the days of coal were already well in the past.
It wasn't the fact she closed mines - after all, there's only so much coal - it was the way that she did it. The miners weren't stupid, they understood their own business. She pulled the plug on all the mines, viable or otherwise, and made zero effort to instigate a managed shift in industry to give people something else to move on to. The Tower colliery is an example. Closed, then bought out by the workers and continued working for another 30 years. It closed recently because now it finally is out of coal.
She did this she was a Tory and Tories do not give a shit - this is their basic underlying principle. The whole ethos of the Tories is small government, which means letting the markets take care of everything. So yes, in theory, given a large labour force with no jobs they will either move elsewhere or some other company will move in to employ them. This is fine if you treat people as resources, but they aren't, they are people, and if you just let the market deal with everything they will get totally ****ed over and their quality of life will suffer. It's up to you whether or not you think it matters if people are suffering when you could help them.
This. The Tory party is an omnishambles and has been for years. (Even if they weren’t 9 years in Government *alone* would be enough to condemn most Governments to lose just out of voter feeling it’s ‘time for change’.)
Any Labour leadership since Foot would be looking at a landslide right now. The only thing that could have saved the Torys is Corbyn/Abbot/McDonnell.
For me there's two parts to this, firstly the overall toxicity of Corbyn because of his past and current affiliations, which his supporters seem happy to overlook. But then there's the economic policies Labour are proposing, and the capital flight and economic downturn which would ensue.
I could just about hold my nose and vote for Corbyn - he'd be an embarrassment, but perhaps no worse than the current government. But with McDonnell behind him, Labour are positively dangerous. With the current Tories beyond the pale, I won't be voting for them either. Tragic.
If you listen to many older people from northern colliery towns, you'd have thought that the past in these places was some sort of industrial utopia that the Tories destroyed in the 80s.
Read JB Priestley's travelogue, Journey Through England, which is a book that strongly influenced the creation of the welfare state, and you'll find that the opposite was true. These were grim, depressing places in the 1930s; they've just traded one type of grimness for another.
JP
If anyone thinks this echo chamber is representative of the population as a whole they are seriously deluded. Fact is the tory vote is substantially more popular amongst the boomers and only becomes more so as population segments get older despite the protestations of the forum members.
Nobody is accusing you personally, get over it. I'll be voting SNP but have little appetite for another referendum if this goes the right way. That doesn't make me a nationalist just as mush as being a certain age doesn't automatically make you a tory. I'm honestly amazed this needed to be said at all.
firstly the overall toxicity of Corbyn because of his past and current affiliations, which his supporters seem happy to overlook.
Yes so much this! Good mates with Pinochet, pol pot, the apartheid regime, Saudis, Orban the list of odious fellow travelers is endless
But then there’s the economic policies Labour are proposing, and the capital flight and economic downturn which would ensue.
But then again, none of that may actually happen.
But with McDonnell behind him, Labour are positively dangerous.
Yeah, really dangerous. They may even make society a bit better, god forbid.
Andrew Rawnsley pointing out in today’s Observer what has been glaringly obvious to all but the most terminally deluded for the past four years
If Boris Johnson gets back to number 10 he’ll have Jeremy Corbyn to thank
So thanks in advance to the common room for the hard Brexit we’ve got coming and whatever the Tory’s decide to do with that for the next five years
You’ll be happy though. You’ll have plenty to wave your placards about. I look forward to being asked to sign your internet petitions as we head back to some Dickensian era of inequality.
Also depressing
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1203611424380964865?s=19
I don't really get it, I spent a good part of my 18-24 years being hissed &/or stoned but I think I've only missed voting in one election, when Id just graduated and started my first job but hadn't registered to vote in a new town
I see the usual establishment centre-left suspects like Andrew Rawnsley are lining up their pitch for labour to move back to Blairism. They've been waiting and hoping for this, and doing everything they can to make it happen for 4 years.
Whatever happens on thursday one thing is clear, labour's future is no longer with the tired middle aged reactionaries in the west midlands and the north, or the self-serving boomer liberals in the cities. It's with the radical young who want a completely different approach centred around combating climate change and generational injustice. It gives me quite a lot of hope as I think this is a generation which will not be bought off or ignored. Anyone over 40 not voting in the interests of their kids can go **** themselves.
Andrew Rawnsley pointing out
Amazing binners. Rawnsley has been one of the leading media figures who has done everything to smear and misrepresent Corbyn. Hardly a surprise you're such a big fan of his.
Hope? Jesus H ****ing Corbett! Have a word with yourself. You should familiarise yourself with the concept of democracy. You know... actually needing to get elected before you get to do anything
Tony Blair did
Waving placards and railing about the injustice of it all on Internet forums changes nothing!
Have fun wallowing in your moral indignation during the next 5 years of Tory rule 🙄
Also depressing
Yep, and lay that over the voting (tory vs Labour) by age and there is the answer. If the 18-34s all went out to vote it would be a different story.
Have fun wallowing in your moral indignation
If I'm morally indignant about anything, it's people on the 'left' (or rather people who think they are), who don't recognise that we need to completely change the economic system to combat climate change and social injustice. You often go on about Tony Blair and his acolytes. Do you really think they would change the economic system to combat climate change? Do you really think they will challenge the power of billionaire plutocrats? Will they challenge the power of offshore-based corporations who suck money out of economy and leave trillions sitting in tax-free bank accounts? Will they change a political system which is corrupt to it's core? Of course they won't, and they never will, because they're fully paid up members and beneficiaries of it. I know one thing for certain, if the billionaire-owned media hate Corbyn so much, then that's all the reason I need for supporting him, because it means he's a threat to them. Funny how they all love Tony Blair though.
hey may even make society a bit better, god forbid.
There's an awful lot of good that could be done without going to the extremes of public ownership, union influence and appropriation of private assets that Labour are proposing. And as I said I would readily support that.
Good look with permanent opposition in the Corbynite political wilderness.
We’re all relishing the Tory hegemony as a little satellite of Trumps America
The sixth formers can all wrap themselves up in their blanket of sanctimonious pious placard-waving that will change nothing.
The far right neoliberal ultras are looking at people like you and the rest of the Corbynite fantasists and they can’t believe their luck
If you listen to many older people from northern colliery towns, you’d have thought that the past in these places was some sort of industrial utopia that the Tories destroyed in the 80s.
I grew up in a pit village in the 50s and 60s. Many of my dad's colleagues died of lung complaints. No one there thought it was utopia - but it was work.
Huge chunks of NHS service delivery have been sold off, that has been the major contributor to inefficiency in the past 10 years, not the fabled army of bureaucracy.
OK, as some-one who works in the Healthcare sector, let's have a look at one example of delivery in the private sector and how that's effected efficiency . In 2016 I was part of a pilot scheme that used un-used GP consulting rooms to bring Ophthalmologists out into the community, recruited some diagnostic technicians and we set up a community based service. Pts are directed to us from High street opticians in the same way that they would have gone to the trust, pts are triaged and those that need to seen quickly or are routine (much in ophthalmology is routine) go to the community service. This cut waiting list time from 18 to 4 weeks (as an incentive there some onerous financial penalties for missing targets), plus we saw patients in a "one stop" model, ie they got diagnosed, got results, got seen by the doctor, got a treatment plan and recalled appt sorted in one visit, as opposed to the two or three 18 week wait appts it used to take at the Trust. More people had their sight restored and stabilized in the 9 months of the first year than were treated at the trust in the previous 5 years. Working with the sight loss charities we did outreach work where we funded the ECLO service and could direct patients to it. We also ran a programme counselling older patients with advancing sight loss (we started the programme developed by the trust, that they'd never managed to implement)*
Now, there were some issues, as you've pointed out there is in fact a lack of management at most Trusts, they are woefully undermanged to the extent that I pretty much had to step in to manage the dept pathway. We also recognised that recently qualified eye doctors weren't seeing the numbers of routine patients in the Trust, so we established a programme to have them come to the community service model instead.
This model is being repeated all over the country in Eye, ENT, sexual health, dermatology services and so on. Patients are being seen quicker, diagnosed earlier, and it saves money. (including taking into the capped profit we're allowed to make) People are having better sight for longer, and it's a more efficient use of the meagre resources we have and working with the system we've been handed.
Also, bear in mind this point about the Public face of the NHS...Where most people interact with it (that's mostly: The GP, the Optician, the Dentist and the Pharmacy) have been from the beginning of the service, and remain to this day: Profit making organisations mostly held in private hands. I could bore on for England about the damage that the UDA system of payments has done to NHS dental care, but my point is this. Never in it's history has the NHS not been partly run by private organisations for profit.
I'm not arguing that entirely privatised healthcare is the way forward, but neither is the wholly state funded model either. Most countries see somewhere in the middle as the best way, the most successful European healthcare services have a blend of public and private (top up) insurance models, as it does seem to (as the lecture I went to in Spain recently pointed out) make people invest some care into their own health (but it is also true that they tend to invest more of their GDP in healthcare) we are not far from that.
It's my belief that the NHS is a handy motif for both parties to use, like most things the truth is mostly duller than the headlines and soundbites suggest.
* it was a part of contract that we had to provide these services and they had to entirely funded by us
I’m not arguing that entirely privatised healthcare is the way forward, but neither is the wholly state funded model either.
How was your scheme funded?
Also.
Of the US healthcare corps I've spoken to (and I'm willing to bet it's more than most on here have) have ZERO interest to replicate the healthcare system as it currently operates in the states. Why? Folk in the US aren't stupid' that's why. They look at the European model, and they see a system that works, costs hugely less than theirs and has significantly better outcomes for more people than theirs has. Most states are beginning to enrol more and more people into partly state funded models, MediCare and MedicAid and maternity services are being expanded, in many states they are slowly moving towards a European model.
Doesn't make for scary headlines though, sorry.
How was your scheme funded?
From the public purse, like your GP is.
The CCG used the money that's there, incentivised innovation, and risk, and have better local outcomes. In exactly the same way that they do with GP services.
If you listen to many older people from northern colliery towns, you’d have thought that the past in these places was some sort of industrial utopia that the Tories destroyed in the 80s.
Hmm.
A quick google reveals that Journey through England (which I've not read) was published in 1934. At that time in South Wales the coal industry was huge, supplying steam coal to keep the Empire running. Employers held all the cards as usual so people who needed the work were being exploited, and yes, conditions were miserable as they were in many industrial areas across the UK. People who'd been rich enough to invest in industry in the first place were raking in obscene sums of money, whilst those doing the work suffered terrible conditions.
So what happened next? The Labour movement became stronger, worker rights were won, and conditions improved. By the 60s, where most of the old northern people you are talking about were young, things were fairly buoyant. They finally had better conditions, more modern housing and importantly, a sense of identity and purpose. This happened because of the post-war settlement, and Labour governments that wanted to improve conditions for the workers.
This is what Thatcher tossed in the bin. That's why the miners' strikes were so important. It wasn't just the loss of work, it was the systematic way that communities were being gutted and thrown in the bin, deliberately.
So I think your reference to the poverty 1930s industrial towns actually demonstrates the benefits of a strong left leaning governemnt - it improved things.
Of the US healthcare corps I’ve spoken to (and I’m willing to bet it’s more than most on here have) have ZERO interest to replicate the healthcare system as it currently operates in the states. Why?
Of course USA firms don’t want to repeat the USA system here… they have people in power here now who will support them getting their hands on just the functions they can transform to create private profits, without having to go near those areas that will only ever be a financial black hole. Cream off profits where they can be made, leave the state looking after the rest. The “NHS is safe in our hands” mostly means that we will always have something branded NHS, and there will always be elements of it that remain in state hands. But don’t be fooled into thinking “safe” means what you want it to mean.
In the plasma example, how “safe” is that element of the NHS now?
And, I refer you back to the John Major python quote… these are not just the same old Tories that we will be trusting as regards the NHS.
Doesn’t make for scary headlines though, sorry.
The headlines are simplistic. But what I am worried about is the gradual reduction and erosion of NHS services and the more widespread adoption of insurance-based provision. This is what I think the Tories would rather see, and what would be worse for us.
That and that no-one should profit from people being ill, from a moral standpoint.
But what I am worried about is the gradual reduction and erosion of NHS services and the more widespread adoption of insurance-based provision.
Like it as not, we are starting to see the healthcare explosion that Japan has. We have an increasing elderly population that over most of their lifetimes have not had enough intervention, have had mostly zero incentive to look after their own health, and are increasingly suffering lifestyle diseases that at best can be mitigated rather than cured. People are living longer, but are suffering more illnesses. What used to kill folk in their late 60's and early 70's 30 years ago have been mostly eradicated but Type 2 diabetes while it can be managed, we're not curing enough people. we passed the point where more of the elderly population in the UK are taking more than 1 drug per day ie, there are more elderly that take more than 1 drug a day than take none or only 1.
Do you throw more and more public money at a problem that most healthcare experts realise is only getting worse? Or do you try different things? Most European countries are trying different things.
From the public purse, like your GP is.
That's what I expected. But you also made the point "I’m not arguing that entirely privatised healthcare is the way forward, but neither is the wholly state funded model either". Your scheme was state funded but outsourced. Having been to similar clinics myself they worked very well and I don't necessarily see a big problem there. I think the major concern of "privatising" the NHS is that it becomes funded by insurance companies. It's clear that where that happens the cost to the user increases massively.
We have an increasing elderly population that over most of their lifetimes have not had enough intervention, have had mostly zero incentive to look after their own health, and are increasingly suffering lifestyle diseases that at best can be mitigated rather than cured.
Yes I agree. Wouldn't it be nice to have a healthcare system set up in such a way to encourage people to be healthy?
getting their hands on just the functions they can transform to create private profits, without having to go near those areas that will only ever be a financial black hole.
One, In order to provide services to the NHS you need to registered as a Provider or an Integrator, to get registered, you have to be a wholly UK owned business. No provider license? no public money. Two, If you think that there are untrammeled profits to be made in the UK healthcare sector you are sorely misguided. Three, Healthcare provision in the US is seperate from the Insurance Companies, and it's them you need to be wary of...Four CCG's and Trusts aren't stupid, they do have contract managers and rules and what you can do and can't do, and the local CCG is answerable to it's local GPs and public, without the support of those, they cannot act. If you want to get involved in decisions that affect how your local CCG spends money, feel free to go along to any of their public meetings.
Wouldn’t it be nice to have a healthcare system set up in such a way to encourage people to be healthy?
yes agree 100%, it does however involve hugely more education, intervention and personal cost than in surveys; most UK citizens are willing to bear. It's taken 30 or more years to move to these systems in Europe, they are only just seeing the benefits, and arguably we're behind the curve.
Right, we'd better get cracking then.
So, how’s FPTP looking to people now?
Same as it ever was. Crap, unrepresentative.
have had mostly zero incentive to look after their own health
Having private insurance doesn't incentivise people either - people in the US are even less healthy than we are. We have TV adverts (and programming) trying to encourage us to be healthy. They have adverts to sell you drugs and promise you that everything will be fine if you just ask your healthcare provider about our drug.
Having private insurance doesn’t incentivise people either
Not wholly no, but having more education and intervention alongside an investment into your own health does seem to; as the Dutch, Germans and Spanish have discovered. There isn't just the NHS and the US model, and TBH there are things that the US model does hugely better than we do, they are incentivized (by losing money) to be integrated. You need to send your patient to the right place at the right time for the right treatment and it needs to work, first time, otherwise you lose money The NHS is (generally) lousy at this. In every CCG there are services operating that are really good, but they aren't signposted, or the local GPs haven't been made aware of, or folk aren't willing to change...
We need, as a population need to move away from the black and white simplistic arguments that currently pass for debate about health, and that needs to start with politicians. It won't be the Tories though, so vote Labour.
@nickc, that all sounds great, changing the way something was done improved outcomes. What you fail to explain is why "privatisation" of the service created better outcomes than if the same changes were made keeping the service in the public sector, and how the requirement for profit over the contract in any way helps improve services.
requirement for profit over the contract in any way helps improve services.
Because there is a limited pot of funds and in the public sector, you rightly can't take the sort of risks that private companies can. If the community service that I describe hadn't worked, then the risk is wholly within the private sector and the public purse remains safe. Do you want to take that risk with public money? We could invest in equipment, training over a number of years that most Trusts either lack capacity planning to do, or aren't incentivised to do because of the to risk public money, or have only enough budget to provide services, not to experiment with new.
You could invest public money into Trusts to grow that capacity, but for years and years now Govts of both colours have beaten the drum of "Front line services" one of the many problems that the NHS has is a lack of capacity to innovate, there just isn't that layer of management anymore that have that insight and drive in co-operation with doctors to drive change.
For profit companies can be made to do good, you just have to set the rules properly.
(Healthcare) Folk in the US aren’t stupid’ that’s why.
Oh, they are. They do one million heart stent operations a year in the US "to stop any problems before they happen"
Of these operations 2% die during the procedure. 20,000 die from something they don't really need, because it's sold to them as a good thing, and makes lots of money for hospitals. Less than half even say they feel better afterwards.
Plus, the number one reason for bankruptcy in the US is medical bills.
It looks a bit stupid from this side of the atlantic
It's not so much private vs public as good management vs bad/no management. As Nick says, the NHS is massively under-managed, despite all the headlines about fat cat NHS managers, and the organisation of primary vs secondary care is preventing the effective sharing of assets.
As far I can see, the scheme described there is simply shifting skills and resources geographically rather than keeping them in a big building in a big town, and streamlining an inefficient referral pathway by cutting out a couple of steps. Patients are seen more quickly, by the right person, rather than seeing an optician, getting told to go to the GP, waiting for a GP appointment, trusting the GP will make the right referral, waiting for a clinic appointment, then waiting for a clinical intervention.
The real question is, what obstacles are there which are preventing this kind of best practice from being the default - and it keeps coming back to the way that these services are organised and funded. The NHS, as he points out, is a mishmash of private contractors, businesses and public-run organisations. There have been attempts to make them consider problems together (primary care trusts, commissioning groups etc).
Hobson's choice - you can either have a single, publically-run system which will probably be bureaucratic and inflexible, or a disconnected mix of public and private which will also probably be bureaucratic and inflexible, neither with a great incentive to change.
or a disconnected mix of public and private which will also probably be bureaucratic and inflexible, neither with a great incentive to change.
No, in order to make the service I describe profitable, we cannot be disconnected, we were incentivised to make sure everyone and their dog knew about it. Same with the incentive to change, what it needs are people who can see profit in risk, and CCGs willing to innovate. There will likely be mistakes, but we cannot afford not to change how we talk about healthcare in this country.
The Tories will want to do that as secondary to making their friends rich. Vote Labour.
They do one million heart stent operations a year in the US
Sure, if you want scarey waste, look up the survival rate of single women over 70 who've had a hip replacement. No healthcare system is perfect.
Nice generalisation. You haven’t got a clue what I do but you carry on thinking
I do have a clue actually cos I read the research. There is a lot of it and most of it says the same thing - there are a set of common behaviours and they quite literally aren't like the rest I us.
There are a lot of people who think like that
They have no **** clue that they are where they are mostly down to luck and privilege, no clue at all.
Nice generalisation. You haven’t got a clue what I do but you carry on thinking that if it makes you feel better.
Hmm. Bit of pot, kettle, black going on there, pal.
If you listen to many older people from northern colliery towns, you’d have thought that the past in these places was some sort of industrial utopia that the Tories destroyed in the 80s
I did listen to them, I had no choice, since they lived in the same house and no, they didn't think it was a Utopia. They did think it was a community in which the people could be proud that they went to work, worked hard, got paid, supported the businesses in their community. Had a sense of purpose, self respect.
When Thatcher closed the pits, including the profitable ones, she did it in a way that caused maximum damage to those people and communities. Parlty because she was pissed at the Unions for 'winning' the last time around. They did precisely nothing to help those people and communities cushion the blow.
Behaviour which you continue to see today.
The level of understanding about how the US health system works is shocking. You do not want to go down that road.
d. Yet in spite of that desperate level of underfunding Labour decided on a wafer thin increase of 3bn.
So do you actually believe that the Tories, who have been slowly strangling the NHS to death, are suddenly going to find all sorts of money for it? Which party, based on its history, is more likely to try and find it properly?
People have spent the last three decades saying the Tory’s are going to privatize the NHS during every election campaign (and at times in between). All that crying wolf means
How is it crying wolf when they have actually been doing it, piece by piece?
So all the other times you said they were going to privatise the NHS they didn’t.
Except for the bits they did. It takes time to sell off a thing as big as the NHS, well the profitable bits at least, in a way the voters don't notice. Judging by you, they've been doing a good job.
So do you actually believe that the Tories, who have been slowly strangling the NHS to death, are suddenly going to find all sorts of money for it?
They'll find as much money for it as the possibly can and then some. But only if it means that large proportions of public funds finds its way into the hands of their mates and paymasters to gouge a profit out of.
Would the average punter even know that the NHS was being privitised? I don't think so. It would be a vote winner amoungst the sheeple - every election campaign huge increase to the NHS budget - they'd lap it up. As long as the NHS remains free at the point of use, I reckon they'll get away with it. Performance indicators and reports can all be manipulated. They won't get away with it if they introduce insurance etc to pay for it though.