You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
It may be cheaper to buy half the amount but when you're only taking on calories with little or no nutritional value, I imagine that having a bit more gruel seems quite an appealing proposition.. In fact you've demonstrated my point very well 5thelephant, thanks
Gruel is underrated imho
Let's not forget that for the last 25 years SAT's have been the holy miracle of education. Lessons encompassing practical subjects such as cookery were relegated to one term, is it any wonder why there's generations who know nothing about nutrition and how to create a meal using fresh ingredients.
do we have to go outside to have a crap with the scraps of paper to wipe our backsides
do we live longer
are we able to find out facts within a few seconds without having 20 copies of the encyclopaedia brittanica
do kids still suffer from polio
Yes, all good but none of that explains away why we still have people suffering. And why we are all so bloody selfish. I think you're missing my main point which is that we have not advanced as society and the way we think about each other. I mean we're arguing about it on the internet with great sophistication and technology but we're still arguing about it!
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/27/bhs-workers-swamp-charles-dickens-charity-with-help-requests ]want and ignorance seem to be on the rise[/url]
Klunk - Memberwant and ignorance seem to be on the rise
You say it as if it's a bad thing
[img] 
[/img]
[url= http://www.openculture.com/2016/12/when-ayn-rand-collected-social-security-medicare.html ]if it's good enough for Tory /Chicago School Of Economics poster girl... [/url]
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38538637 ]and there was me thinking UK plc[/url] was rocking along very nicely. I was wondering why with the soar away UK economy the government can't rustle up a bit of extra cash to see us through the winter, good for the the nhs and good for mrs mayhems rep/pole ratings.
But Mrs Maybe, like her predecessor, has a motive to underfund the NHS to the point of collapse, untill Branson swoops in and saves the day. Hunt wrote a little tome all about the process.
I Had lunch with a GP from hull yesterday
He said their surgery was on the verge of collapse 3 GPS for 16000 people,
Can't fill the vacancies, he reckoned it was same across the whole of the north east, his opinion was that it must be deliberate because no government could be that stupid and the plan was just to privatise the lot .
No idea how many Jr docs have left because of Hunts contract but I know 2 who have left for the merry old land of Oz
Kimbers GPs got a stonking payrise under Labour and the ability to not have to do weekend working and home visits. Tories have increased budgets every year since. What's gone wrong ?
As an aside a good friend is a part time GP, she makes about £65k working part time. Filling vacancies depends on what's being offererd, in her veiw many practices try and take too big a cut for the partners.
Junior Docs Leaving. Perfect example of why their education should be fully paid for personally (Medical school is still heavily subsidised) or a minimum period working for the NHS. Aussies able to pay more as they don't use our funding system. Ditto Europe.
As I have said repeatedly I want to see a 30% increase in health spending, issue is how you find that £40bn pa
Health costs are rising at 4% pa way above inflation and gdp so we need higher taxes every year to pay for it.
Jamby. As usual, your post is full of disingenuous nonsense.
The budget increases, if at all existent, in no way match demand for the service. Whinging that Lab did something nearly a decade ago makes your defence of the Tories even more laughable.
Don't subsidise med school and the result will be no junior doctors. Or lots of immigrants filling their roles. I thought brexshit was all about reducing immigration of foreigners?
We could perhaps find that £40bn by not wasting it in brexshit, prosecuting tax minimisers and tax dodgers accordingly, and not spending £200bn on nukes
Higher taxes as you suggest would also be goo for the higher earners.
his opinion was that it must be deliberate because no government could be that stupid and the plan was just to privatise the lot .
It's simpler than that. I doubt it's a deliberate policy, it's just an absence of policy. It's the same with teacher numbers and the crisis in social care. They just don't give a shit. And because of that they don't have a policy, and don't do anything about it. A tory govt's single purpose is to enable their backers (we know who they are) to continue getting richer, and to entrench their power. Everything else is just incidental froth which will only be addressed when it threatens their privileged position.
I find it amazing quite frankly that people allow them to get away with it. It's all very well being angry and indignant, but until the population at large decides it's had enough and moves to do something about it (and I'm not talking about voting), then there's not much point.
and not spending £200bn on nukes
Lefty nonsense no credible politician could say this we need a mass suicide device.
doubt it's a deliberate policy, it's just an absence of policy. It's the same with teacher numbers and the crisis in social care.
I think it is deliberate with teachers no one could be stupid enough to do what they have done without a motive.
As an aside a good friend is a part time GP,
😆
As I have said repeatedly I want to see a 30% increase in health spending, issue is [b]how you find that £40bn pa[/b]
*strokes chin*
Well put dazh!
Kimbers GPs got a stonking payrise under Labour and the ability to not have to do weekend working and home visits. Tories have increased budgets every year since. What's gone wrong ?
The overall NHS budget has increased but not funding for General Practice which has dramatically fallen. GP pay has also steadily fallen in recent years, 13% isn't uncommon. GPs have cut their wages to maintain the pay for the other practice salaried employees as income for the practice is determined by complex contracts covering the services they provide and undertake.
People seem to think that being a GP just seeing patients, there's a hell of a lot more work clinical and practice management work that goes on.
dont challenge jamby with facts he is immune to the rational truth
The GP did say that he was making a fortune converting all the extra shifts, his plan was to make enough and get out before privatisation hits
Toires won the election promising an extra £8bn pa and will deliver £10bn. £8bn is what the NHS asked for. The Tories totally demolished Labour on the NHS in 2010. Smashed them. £10bn pa after 5 years is 7.7% The issue is rising costs far outstripping inflation, to stand still the NHS needs 21.6% increase in it's budget or about £28bn pa by the end of the Parliament. That's why campaigners are calling a £10bn increase as a cut as costs increase you have to cut something if the budget rises more slowly.
Zokes feel free to find a politcial party suggesting that (not even the Greens) then vote for them. You list of where the money wouod come from is a campaigners fantasy list. In 13 years Labour failed to prodice anything from that list.
Trident spending is a chuckle as posters keep inflating it, originally the inflated figure was £130bn over 30 years, now I see Zokes and others using £200bn. Why stop there, why not £300bn ? Anyway £200bn is still only £6.7bn a year, barely 17% of what's required and that's before you factor in the negative impacts on employment and manufacturing which would come from cancelling the whole project.
BTW my GP friend was very negative about the Labour reforms and budget increaes, she said right from the beginning Doctors would just take a big chunk of the extra money in wages and opt out of anti social weekend working and home visits.
The French have much higher taxes (most STWers would pay 50%) and much higher national insurance (one reason why unemployment is 10% amd 25% amongst young), they have VAT on food (10%) and they still have a hybrid health service with most middle class citizens paying monthly private health insurance which supplements the state system and works TOGETHER with it complementing the state contribution, something ours in the UK does not.
The UK needs to have a sensible conversation about how the fund health service and how it should work. Currently that's simply not possible without knee jerk nonsense I see above. So we as a country will just keep suffering. The NHS needs £28pa extra by 2020 and Labour where promising £2bn. 7% of what's needed FFS. Safe in our hands and saving the NHS eh ?
Id GLADLY pay more tax if folk werent actively ended by the DWP for ridiculous "crimes"
Id gladly pay more tax if no one, and i do mean noone faced starvation or homelessness
Id gladly pay more tax if the NHS was allowed to be run in a proper, efficient manner with proper costings in the supply chain etc.
£8bn is what the NHS asked for.
completely and utterly untrue
The boss of the NHS has told Jeremy Hunt that the health service may need closer to £21bn extra over the next few years, far more than the £8bn ministers have promised.In pointed remarks made on Friday and aimed at the health secretary, Simon Stevens said people should not “rewrite history” on the exact sums the NHS in England will need by 2020. Hunt has repeatedly stressed that the government has pledged to boost the NHS budget by £8bn over that period because that is the amount set out in a blueprint unveiled in 2014 called the NHS Five Year Forward View, which Hunt, David Cameron and George Osborne now call “the Stevens plan”.
In a major speech on Friday to NHS leaders, Stevens reminded Hunt that the document said the health service would need £8bn-£21bn by 2020, and would only cope with the smaller amount if major progress was made on improving social care, public health and how NHS care was delivered.
Five MPs led by Sarah Wollaston, the Conservative chair of the Commons health select committee, have demanded the government abandon its “incorrect” claim that it is putting £10bn into the NHS annual budget by the end of parliament.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/31/how-much-extra-money-tory-government-really-giving-nhsI best explain jambers that is what the rational folk call referencing your claim with actual evidence.
Did anyone else read that in the voice of Trump?The Tories totally demolished Labour on the NHS in 2010
they have never been more trusted on the NHS than Labour
As always the facts and you are immiscible
BTW my GP friend was very negative about the Labour reforms and budget increaes, she said right from the beginning Doctors would just take a big chunk of the extra money in wages and opt out of anti social weekend working and home visits.
Home visits occur as one of a GPs sessions during the week i.e. a morning or afternoon, a practice GP will make home visits. They don't opt out.
Labour's reforms spilt out the out of hours GP services into separate contracts. GP practices could tender to provide the service in their area and so could other companies. Since the Health and Social Care act Clinical Commissioning Groups have commissioned OoH services. They do not all fund them to the same level hence some areas have crap OoH coverage.
It's hardly surprising that practice GPs don't want to take up OoH work. They typically see patients between 0830 and 1800, but this will likely overrun. Then ether side there's preparing to see patients, completing paperwork, practice management meetings, producing health strategies for the area, people management, professional development, tendering services etc. This burden has increases since the H&SC Act. The demographics of GPs is changing, many more are women with children and prefer to work reduced hours to be with their children, so aren't available to work OoH. Being an OoH GP isn't just getting up occasionally in the night to see a patient, it's full-time seeing patients with conditions that are often more complex.
"The great masses will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one"
The UK needs to have a sensible conversation about how the fund health service and how it should work.
Until we all accept that we will have to pay for health care in some manner, sensible conversations are impossible
find it amazing quite frankly that people allow them to get away with it. It's all very well being angry and indignant, but until the population at large decides it's had enough and moves to do something about it (and I'm not talking about voting), then there's not much point.
Or perhaps they have a more accurate picture of what is going on?
Junkyard - lazarus
£8bn is what the NHS asked for.completely and utterly untrue
I don't think it is utterly untrue Junkyard, see below.
.
jambalaya - MemberThe NHS needs £28pa extra by 2020 and Labour where promising £2bn. 7% of what's needed FFS. Safe in our hands and saving the NHS eh ?
I think you've got your facts a little mixed up jambalaya.
First of all I don't know what [i]"The NHS needs £28pa extra by 2020"[/i] means or where you got that figure from. As you yourself pointed out in Oct 2014 the NHS itself said that it needed an extra £8bn by 2020.
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/23/nhs-radical-overhaul-hospitals-8bn-services ]The NHS calls for an extra £8bn by 2020 in order to safeguard its services[/url]
During the 2015 general election campaign Labour promised an extra £2.5bn a year on NHS spending, which over 5 years I make £12.5bn - more than the NHS asked for.
Furthermore as Junkyard has pointed out the cross-party Health Select Committee has claimed :
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/nhs-funding-conservative-pledge-jeremy-hunt-government-a7144096.html ]Conservative boost to NHS 'half what was pledged in manifesto'[/url]
[i][b]'In our view, the funding announced in the Spending Review does not meet the Government’s commitment'[/b][/i]
Note this:
[b][i]The Government has changed its definition of NHS spending since 2015/16 so it only includes money going to NHS England, excluding other NHS resources, according to the report.
Through cutting some parts of the Department of Health’s budget, such as from recruiting staff and health promotion schemes, it gave NHS England a big budget increase. The areas now excluded from the figures, for instance programmes preventing obesity, have a direct impact on frontline services.[/i][/b]
So this present Tory government is shifting money from areas of the NHS (which are now no longer considered to be NHS spending) to other areas so that it can claim that it is "extra" spending on the NHS.
Who would have thought that the Tories could do such as thing ?
mildly falseI don't think it is utterly untrue Junkyard, see below.
somewhat misleading?
As I quoted they asked for a minimum of 8 billion and they did not ask, as you noted for other services to be cut within the NHS to fund the NHS
Misleading or a simplification is probably a more accurate term though
Did anyone else read that in the voice of Trump?
I tend to read all of his posts in the voice of Trump. It is so fitting for someone who just makes stuff up and then keeps repeating it as though it becomes true after the 10th time.
Also never replies to any question about what he says.
Do you think he might actually be Trump?
Now now kerly 🙂 I did sit next to Steve Mnuchin for a year when in NYC (he's the new Treasury Secretary), that's my only claim to Trumpain fame.
Ernie NHS asked for £8bn pa by 2020 but what I find really odd is many interviews inc from CEO say that costs are growing at 4% pa - so I compounded that over the 5 year term of the Parliament and applied it to the annual NHS budget.
Yes there are cuts in services as the rate at which the Government is increasing the NHS budget is slower than the rate of inflation in providing those services. In the 10 years from 2010 to 2020 NHS spending will increase by £35bn but the increasing cost of services is eating that up plus population ageing.
IMO one of our biggest issues is we do not spend enough on Private Healthcare (see link below) and that IMO is due to the terrible lack of co-operation between NHS and Private systems.
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/health-care-spending-compared
^^^ I know Junkyard has said in the past that our much lower spending cost/head in GDP terms is due to NHS efficiency meaning it's "cheaper". My view is we are spending much less and getting much less
Healthcare spending in billions since 1950. As I said Nationally we need a serious conversation as it's not enough
[img] 
[/img]
"As I said Nationally we need a serious conversation"
My personal experience of the NHS has been superb, but it's pretty clear that very few people are happy with the funding mechanism. We have to move to a private model, that way everyone gets exactly the legal of cover they want and nobody can complain.
We have to move to a private model, that way everyone gets exactly the legal of cover they want and nobody can complain.
Could you explain how this would work?
GPs to be paid £150 to diagnose and treat dementia
Could you explain how this would work?
If you don't have any money you'll die and be unable to complain.
"Could you explain how this would work?"
Beats me. But it's clear that people think the current model is vulnerable to deliberate underfunding for political reasons and for my entire lifetime there has been a consensus that the NHS is underfunded.
So clearly it doesn't work for most people in practice.
I know people don't like this Hunt bloke, but he must be really bad if he thinks that underfunding a business and running it into the ground would make it attractive for privatisation? Is this some new kind of strategy for preparing a company for the market? Still haven't seen any prospectus yet though? Even odder still......
it's pretty clear that very few people are happy with the funding mechanism. We have to move to a private model
The private model is far less cost effective, the United states proves that in a very dramatic way. If you want the UK to spend more of its GDP on healthcare then a switch to the private model would be the way to go.
But if you are looking to reducing the cost of healthcare then privatisation is definitely not the way to go.
I know people don't like this Hunt bloke, but he must be really bad if he thinks that underfunding a business and running it into the ground would make it attractive for privatisation? Is this some new kind of strategy for preparing a company for the market?
What a silly comment.
Indeed Ernie, it's very hard to fit in with the tone of the thread, so excuse me.
so excuse me.
It's pretty much what I expect from you - disingenuous nonsense - the sort of stuff that a Daily Mail columnist would write. Not that you're a Tory of course.
Ernie look at the chart on the Kings Group link, France, Germany (in fact pretty much everyone) have much higher levels of private contributions to health (chart is % gdp). The US model is very different as income taxes are very low (rates and deductions) and so it's funded very differently to the European Welfare State model.
Look at the absolute levels of spending I posted.
IMO What we need is legislation which says private health care must cover pre-existing conditions. It would also help if we had a French style system where if you go "private" the state still pays it's standard fee and then you/insurance pays the top up. Everytime we go to the doctors or hospital in France we take our Carte Vital (a chip/pin smart photo card proving entitlement), a credit card and proof of insurance. France one of the most left wing countries in Europe. Do they have demonstrations complaining of a privitised Health Service ? No.
What we have is a fabulous idea, state health care for all free at the point of service. However its not funded at ANYTHING like the right level and no political party is suggesting increasing the budget appropriately. People simply won't vote for what's necessary.
"The private model is far less cost effective"
It *has* to be better than having it run by people who most people think are actively sabotaging it!
^^ this.
People are selfish, they will pay extra insurance for themselves, they won't pay enough extra tax for "everyone"
The NHS is many (positive) things, efficient is not one of them.
Electing a government which is committed to the NHS is the obvious solution rather than handing over healthcare provisions to profit driven providers.
jambalaya - MemberThe NHS is many (positive) things, efficient is not one of them.
Since you like quoting the King's Fund this one is especially for you jambalaya :
[b][i] "The evidence shows that the NHS is performing well compared to other countries' health systems, although there is still room for improvement in some areas".[/i][/b]
[url= https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/topics/nhs-reform/mythbusters/nhs-performance ]Myth one: the NHS is performing poorly compared to other countries' health systems[/url]
"Electing a government which is committed to the NHS is the obvious solution rather than handing over healthcare provisions to profit driven providers."
But most people think that has never happened in my lifetime. (Or maybe in your opinion it has only happened half the time).
Either way, someone taking a percentage out is clearly going to do a far better job than someone who is deliberately sabotaging it.
"Myth one: the NHS is performing poorly compared to other countries' health systems"
So the Tories are a) Deliberately sabotaging it and also b) running it as well as everyone else's. 😀
So the Tories are a) Deliberately sabotaging it and also b) running it as well as everyone else's.
The Tories aren't running it in the day-to-day sense, and even the last reorganisation left a lot of the basic model relatively unchanged. It's quite possible for the fundamental system to be relatively efficient while the very top level (ie political) management is actively undermining the whole thing to try and make a private system seem more appealing.
For the bit of healthcare I work in, a good chunk of the service is provided by a private company. I have no ideological preference either way,but let's just say I'm far from convinced by the logic that private is more efficient - as a possible patient and as a tax payer I'd prefer that service to be provided by the NHS (as it is in some places).
It may well be just that one company, but at the very least it undermines the 'public bad, private good' message that is so prevalent through this whole debate. If anyone has a better idea for how to organise things then I'm all ears, but I think the standard of reasoning and evidence for why it will be better and what current problem is being solved needs to be a bit higher than "well it's obvious, isn't it?".
"the very top level (ie political) management is actively undermining the whole thing"
So it doesn't work and has to be taken out of political control and into our own hands where we can choose. Private model is the only way to do that - if people don't like shareholders just buy healthcare from a not for profit company.
outofbreath - Member"Myth one: the NHS is performing poorly compared to other countries' health systems"So the Tories are a) Deliberately sabotaging it and also b) running it as well as everyone else's.
The only person using the term "deliberately sabotaging" is you. I can't figure out if you are arguing against yourself, or against the King's Fund. Can you explain?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-30740956
There's your private model right there, tear the arse out of it and shut the doors once it's clear there's no profit
I'm still left wondering how outofbreath thinks that private healthcare would ensure everyone gets the cover they want.... I want the best cover please.
I also want the best education possible for my son so when the trick for health care has been revealed can we apply it to education too?
It's pretty much what I expect from you - disingenuous nonsense - the sort of stuff that a Daily Mail columnist would write.
You are too kind Ernie thank you
"The evidence shows that the NHS is performing well compared to other countries' health systems, although there is still room for improvement in some areas".
I take it back. Perhaps they are getting it ready to be privatised after all.
Why are you guys even bothering to debate this ?
Public sector provision of anything is anathema to the Tories.
The NHS will remain a shell logo but everything thing else is now out to tender
http://spendmatters.com/uk/huge-nhs-procurement-outsourcing-ojeu-ad-published/
and the NHS cannot afford to recruit & retain "bid response teams" so will NOT win any work in competitive tenders against Serco, Virgin, Capita etc.
Its all a done deal...Chill
On both Andrew Marr and Sky's new Sophy Ridge programmes the newspaper reviewers (inc Guardian journalist) agreed we spend far too little on health care and that a proper debate isn't possible as the conversation quickly becomes very politcial and highly emotional. As such nothing gets done and health care costs confinue to rise far faster than any government is willing to acknowledge.
Will catch up on thread later
jambalaya - MemberErnie NHS asked for £8bn pa by 2020
Hoping that if you keep saying it, it'll become true? The correction was on the previous page so it's nice and easy to repeat.
Stevens reminded Hunt that the document said the health service would need £8bn-£21bn by 2020, and would only cope with the smaller amount if major progress was made on improving social care, public health and how NHS care was delivered.
And the health select committee says:
“In our view, the funding announced in the Spending Review does not meet the Government’s commitment"
TL;DR- the NHS didn't just ask for £8bn, and the government hasn't given them it anyway.
Nick Hulme, chief executive of Colchester and Ipswich hospital trusts, told HSJ of current problems in A&E: "It's unprecedented. I've not seen anything like this in 37 years in the health service. There is always a hangover from Christmas and New Year but this has been absolutely relentless (in demand and acuity of patients)."
this is absolutely what medic colleagues have told me about their post xmas and new years shifts
and its been a mild winter!!
taken out of political control and into our own hands where we can choose. Private model is the only way to do that
But that's not what's happening or likely to happen - the current model is NHS England (basically department of health) or local groups commission a service from one provider for each area. More of those services being from private companies instead of public NHS makes no difference to choice.
But even with a more radical change, genuine choice depends on people being able to make an informed choice between several viable options. That's almost impossible in healthcare, beyond the very basic "I went private to see someone faster about my knee" type scenario. For surgery, or oncology, or diabetes management, or radiology, or for countless other specialist areas it's impossible for most people, including those working on other areas of healthcare, to know what's really important. We end up with people thinking that private is better because they had nice chairs in the waiting room and a better cafe, never realising that the same problems (or worse) with staffing and equipment meant they'd received pretty average care.
There's also the risk if you duplicate services that certain conditions or procedures become too infrequent for staff to maintain competency/familiarity, with fairly well known clinical risks - even with the current model, there are some specialist departments that cover a huge area because that gives better care, at the expense of local treatment.
The screw turns..
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/01/huge-tax-giveaway-for-rich-as-poor-are-hit-george-osborne-tax-benefit-budget-changes ]Same old, same old....[/url]