Do you want to discuss boring politics? (11 Viewers)

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Don’t get me wrong, insurance based systems aren’t perfect but we’re already in a two-tier system. If you can afford PHI, you get to skip the waiting lists. It’s wrong and people and the workers in the NHS deserve better.

Exactly, and if a nation chooses to fund its healthcare via taxation, as we do and our population is aging we’re inevitably heading toward a critical mass where there aren’t enough taxpayers to keep the system well funded. Without the funding, the standards will drop further. The issues today have been brewing since the 90s - again, New Labour brought in PFI to privatise the day-to-day running of the NHS i.e. building new hospitals, maintaining existing infrastructure and updating kit. That was an honest attempt at easing the funding pressures that ultimately, unravelled after they left government.

We need to pay our staff, maintain the infrastructure, update the equipment and most importantly, treat patients all on a shrinking tax base and increasing demand simultaneously.

The same is true across Europe as a whole we’re getting older, unhealthier and sustainlarge levels of migration.

‘Aren’t perfect’ is an understatement. The USA, which is thinly veiled how most Tories would like us to be, is a horror story of medical inequality.

Taxes need to be higher on large corporations, full stop. If you believe strongly enough in the principle of any system or policy you’ll bust your gut making it work. Pity that the government is too busy setting traps for an opposition that’s too gutless to give an opinion on anything otherwise both sides might have put forward some better NHS ideas for this election.

People were putting forward your type of concerns in the late 40s in a country on its financial knees and solutions were found at the time.

 

---

[shmmeee]

I just don’t get the supposed maths.

We have X people requiring Y treatment at Z cost.

We have to pay Z anyway, whether it’s through tax or insurance as a whole. Except if it’s insurance it’s Z+profit+marketing costs. So either we pay more or we provide Z-n money meaning we can afford Y-n care.

Where does this magic free money come from? Unless of course you believe in magic capitalism souls that will inhabit doctors when their paycheque comes from a different bank account.

 

[chiefdave]

Isn’t it like EDF? I’ve not read into the announcement today

Not from what I can work out. I can buy my energy from EDF, thats not what we're getting I don't think.

Great British Energy will have three initial priorities working alongside private partners:

1. Co-investing in new technologies: Great British Energy will help speed up and scale the deployment of new technologies, with public investment helping to crowd in investment in areas like floating offshore wind, tidal power and hydrogen as they develop into mature technologies.
2. Scale and accelerate mature technologies: Great British Energy will also help scale and accelerate the roll-out of mature technologies, like wind, solar and nuclear. It will partner with existing private sector firms to speed up deployment of mature renewable technologies to meet our ambitious clean power timelines. It will also build organisational capability and expertise to deliver energy megaprojects like nuclear power stations, reducing project and construction risk.
3. Scale up municipal and community energy: GB Energy will partner with energy companies, local authorities and cooperatives to develop 8GWs small-scale and medium-scale community energy projects. Profits will flow directly back into local communities to cut bills, not to the shareholders of foreign companies. This will help to create a more decentralised energy system, with more local generation and ownership, and will help to create a more resilient energy system.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Capitalism works on competition. The idea it would still work on a monopoly is silly. That’s literally why we have the CMA.

Well, kind of. It works on innovation as people will try new products or processes as they believe they can get rich.

However, capitalism also means that those already established will have the desire and means to try and kibosh any competition. Hence why we're still beholden to fossil fuels when we could and should have got rid of them decades ago.

Half the time the 'best' outcome is that the big fish forces the little one out of business then buys all their innovation on the cheap and implements it itself. But for me that's not a good thing.

 

[shmmeee]

Not from what I can work out. I can buy my energy from EDF, thats not what we're getting I don't think.

Sounds like a unified version of Corbyns energy coops at the end there. Is there a full document out there yet? The devil is always in the white paper or whatever. Even Sunaks mad National Service idea had a detailed document behind it. I wonder if we’ll see something soon now it’s been “revealed”.

 

[shmmeee]

Sounds like a unified version of Corbyns energy coops at the end there. Is there a full document out there yet? The devil is always in the white paper or whatever. Even Sunaks mad National Service idea had a detailed document behind it. I wonder if we’ll see something soon now it’s been “revealed”.

Looks like it’s just generation. This is the best document I can find on the Labour site.

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Make-Britain-a-Clean-Energy-Superpower.pdf

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

‘Aren’t perfect’ is an understatement. The USA, which is thinly veiled how most Tories would like us to be, is a horror story of medical inequality.

Taxes need to be higher on large corporations, full stop. If you believe strongly enough in the principle of any system or policy you’ll bust your gut making it work. Pity that the government is too busy setting traps for an opposition that’s too gutless to give an opinion on anything otherwise both sides might have put forward some better NHS ideas for this election.

People were putting forward your type of concerns in the late 40s in a country on its financial knees and solutions were found at the time.

Aren’t perfect, yet beat NHS on most metrics because their funding models funnels money more directly into patient care.

There’s an acceptance from Shmmeee and Fernando that the health outcomes are worse because of obesity and/or poverty.

 

[CCFCSteve]

Surely we can just all agree on the following; the nhs needs to change and improve a bit, the public need to take some personal responsibility for their own health (there’s no excuse on exercise and moderating some of the naughty stuff), the government needs to find a way of getting some additional funding in* ….and hopefully we can have a health secretary that lasts more than a few months

Unfortunately I’m not hopeful on most of the above

*id start with social care and cannot believe this wasn’t a focus when government increased spending around/post covid. You clear the 15%+* of bed blockers (awful phrase) and you immediately increase capacity, relieve pressure on wards and in turn A&E. The health secretary and those running the nhs shouldve known this - sums it up for me, no plan or joined up thinking

 

[shmmeee]

Just cull people at 80. Save billions in healthcare and release millions of housing stock. Vote for me.

 

[shmmeee]

On another note.

Keep politics out of football, right guys? Guys??

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

“Taxpayer funding” is just insurance on a large scale. We all put money in a pot and all draw from it. Just without the waste of a market.

I’m not sure there’s any evidence migrants are particularly net negative for the healthcare system, but not surprised that you think that. But you contradict yourself here as well later claiming declining population numbers are an issue. Well which is it? More people bad or fewer people bad?

Are we getting unhealthier? Drugs like Ozempic are looking promising for all kinds of modern illnesses, personalised medicine continues apace. We seem to have hit peak car which is the cause of most of our health issues. Smoking drinking and drug use are all down as well as risky sexual behaviour.

I’m not sure what you mean by “brought in PFI for the day to day running” PFI was mostly about fixing the crumbing estate in schools and hospitals not day to day running. And is yet another example of private sector waste and inefficiency if anything.

Your ideas on this seem all over the place and as much support publicly provided healthcare as anything else. You admit the pressures are demographic and that all countries are facing them, yet blame them on the funding model without once giving a rational explanation of why. Until you can explain how adding costs to a product is supposed to make it cheaper then really none of your other points make sense.

For “aren’t enough taxpayers” see also “aren’t enough insurance premium payers”. You either want universal healthcare or you don’t and if you don’t then you can cut those costs whatever the funding model.

This is very very basic. Explain how you are going to get more from less while paying shareholder dividends and marketing costs. Or explain who you think doesn’t deserve healthcare who gets it right now and with that accept that you’re too squeamish to make that government policy and instead want these people to lose healthcare from faceless administrators in insurance claims offices.

Ultimately there’s a good reason the only people you’ll find beating this drum are politically and not medically motivated. And why the best reports you can find are far right funded think tanks reports written by an undergrad on work experience.

Firstly, the cost of maintaining a hospital/school is day-to-day spending so yes, PFI was brought in manage this and outsource the spending from government spending.

With SHI models, everyone gets cover so people ‘losing healthcare’ is a boogeyman comment.

The big problem Shmeee is that there’s government owns more hospitals than it’s counterparts. That increases the overheads for maintaining the buildings, buying equipment and of course paying staff. All of those things are chronically underfunded in the NHS. Whereas the SHI systems in Europe are funnelling more of the money raised into patient care.

Just to match spending levels in EU14 countries, over £30bn is needed in funding per year and even that might not be enough. At this point, the health outcomes have been middle of the pack for long (even under New Labour) which calls into question the efficacy of our system and funding model.

As long as healthcare is free to point of delivery, does the government need to own the hospitals and directly employ all the medical professionals?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Aren’t perfect, yet beat NHS on most metrics because their funding models funnels money more directly into patient care.

There’s an acceptance from Shmmeee and Fernando that the health outcomes are worse because of obesity and/or poverty.

Am I to take from this you would prefer the American model?

 

[shmmeee]

Firstly, the cost of maintaining a hospital/school is day-to-day spending so yes, PFI was brought in manage this and outsource the spending from government spending.

With SHI models, everyone gets cover so people ‘losing healthcare’ is a boogeyman comment.

The big problem Shmeee is that there’s government owns more hospitals than it’s counterparts. That increases the overheads for maintaining the buildings, buying equipment and of course paying staff. All of those things are chronically underfunded in the NHS. Whereas the SHI systems in Europe are funnelling more of the money raised into patient care.

Just to match spending levels in EU14 countries, over £30bn is needed in funding per year and even that might not be enough. At this point, the health outcomes have been middle of the pack for long (even under New Labour) which calls into question the efficacy of our system and funding model.

As long as healthcare is free to point of delivery, does the government need to own the hospitals and directly employ all the medical professionals?

Until you can answer my questions I think I’m done on this. Do you think if the hospitals were privately owned there would be fewer overheads? Why? It’s just an article of faith with you. And frankly I imagine we’re boring everyone else going round and round.

 

[shmmeee]

Am I to take from this you would prefer the American model?

Anything as long as it’s not scary publicly owned stuff.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Am I to take from this you would prefer the American model?

You’ve not been reading this thread have you?

France and Australia, two examples highlighted operate on the same principles as the NHS. Their funding model is different.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

You’ve not been reading this thread have you?

France and Australia, two examples highlighted operate on the same principles as the NHS. Their funding model is different.

Neither operate on the same principle as both require an individual to either pay something at the point of use or to take out extra private insurance anyway.

If you want to argue for an insurance based model I’d have used Germany, though even that requires the unemployed to take out health insurance it does seem to achieve good outcomes in a sustainable manner.

 

[shmmeee]

Neither operate on the same principle as both require an individual to either pay something at the point of use or to take out extra private insurance anyway.

If you want to argue for an insurance based model I’d have used Germany, though even that requires the unemployed to take out health insurance it does seem to achieve good outcomes in a sustainable manner.

They spend 1.5% more of GDP on health though.

 

[PVA]

Tommy is on one today

I'm sure they'll all behave themselves.

 

[wingy]

Tommy is on one today

I'm sure they'll all behave themselves.

Is he a useful idiot again I ask myself?

 

[Grendel]

Why would anyone want to post a social media post from him? Doesn’t that give him publicity and a status of credibility?

 

[nicksar]

Neither operate on the same principle as both require an individual to either pay something at the point of use or to take out extra private insurance anyway.

If you want to argue for an insurance based model I’d have used Germany, though even that requires the unemployed to take out health insurance it does seem to achieve good outcomes in a sustainable manner.

You can easily see a GP the same day in Sydney costs 80 dollars in NSW reclaimable from Medicare if you haven't purchased credits.
My Daughter and her Husband also have private medical insurance,she tells me most people who can afford it do that.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Neither operate on the same principle as both require an individual to either pay something at the point of use or to take out extra private insurance anyway.

If you want to argue for an insurance based model I’d have used Germany, though even that requires the unemployed to take out health insurance it does seem to achieve good outcomes in a sustainable manner.

At the current trajectory, the NHS will have introducecharges for GP visits and hospital stays, we already have to pay for prescription fees.

In both France and Australia, the health insurance is socialised and it funded similarly to how our own national insurance works - direct from pay packets. In our own country, there exists a de facto two-tier system whether you like it or not. Over 1 million more patients are using private health (often self-funded) has gone up by over 1 million since COVID to skip waiting lists to treat their conditions. These people aren't the elite, often they're middle class professionals who just want treatment in a timely manner.

I stand before you as a case and point, I supposed to have an appointment with a consultant in Feb, that was pushed to May and now to September. With PHI, I was seen 2 weeks ago and will 2-3 follow ups before September. A lot of people in our age bracket have little experience needing to access to NHS services and it shows when having this difficult conversations.

They spend 1.5% more of GDP on health though.

It’s not all government spending though… the NHS is one of the only systems where the hospitals are run by the government and healthcare workers are government employees. France has around 60% of government run hospitals and that figure in our country is about 80%.

As a country, we cry wolf whenever a party talks about private sector involvement. In all the healthcare systems in Europe and elsewhere, there is more active private sector involvement. Hospitals have more equipment, more clinicians, Conditions and pay for workers is better and the health outcomes for patients is better.

Again, the principles are the same - universal and everyone has equal access to treatment.

 

[PVA]

Why would anyone want to post a social media post from him? Doesn’t that give him publicity and a status of credibility?

Ah shit, you're right.

Nobody would be attending his little rally today if I hadn't posted it on a Coventry City forum. My bad.

 

[shmmeee]

At the current trajectory, the NHS will have introducecharges for GP visits and hospital stays, we already have to pay for prescription fees.

In both France and Australia, the health insurance is socialised and it funded similarly to how our own national insurance works - direct from pay packets. In our own country, there exists a de facto two-tier system whether you like it or not. Over 1 million more patients are using private health (often self-funded) has gone up by over 1 million since COVID to skip waiting lists to treat their conditions. These people aren't the elite, often they're middle class professionals who just want treatment in a timely manner.

I stand before you as a case and point, I supposed to have an appointment with a consultant in Feb, that was pushed to May and now to September. With PHI, I was seen 2 weeks ago and will 2-3 follow ups before September. A lot of people in our age bracket have little experience needing to access to NHS services and it shows when having this difficult conversations.



It’s not all government spending though… the NHS is one of the only systems where the hospitals are run by the government and healthcare workers are government employees. France has around 60% of government run hospitals and that figure in our country is about 80%.

As a country, we cry wolf whenever a party talks about private sector involvement. In all the healthcare systems in Europe and elsewhere, there is more active private sector involvement. Hospitals have more equipment, more clinicians, Conditions and pay for workers is better and the health outcomes for patients is better.

Again, the principles are the same - universal and everyone has equal access to treatment.

So you want to remove universality. That’s fine. But be honest. Don’t pretend you have some magic money saving bullet. You just think some people currently getting healthcare shouldn’t. Next step is for you to name these people.

 

[Grendel]

Ah shit, you're right.

Nobody would be attending his little rally today if I hadn't posted it on a Coventry City forum. My bad.

For someone who constantly accuses others of comprehension issues you really fail to understand the definition of irony.

 

[PVA]

For someone who constantly accuses others of comprehension issues you really fail to understand the definition of irony.

You really think posting a tweet from him on here highlighting his idiocy his giving him credibility?

 

[Grendel]

You really think posting a tweet from him on here highlighting his idiocy his giving him credibility?

I think it means you believe he is someone worthy of discussion or the thread of why post something from his X feed. In fact why look at it - do you follow him?

 

[PVA]

I think it means you believe he is someone worthy of discussion or the thread of why post something from his X feed. In fact why look at it - do you follow him?

Ah yes because you've never discussed Tommy Robinson on here have you.

 

[CCFCSteve]

At the current trajectory, the NHS will have introducecharges for GP visits and hospital stays, we already have to pay for prescription fees.

In both France and Australia, the health insurance is socialised and it funded similarly to how our own national insurance works - direct from pay packets. In our own country, there exists a de facto two-tier system whether you like it or not. Over 1 million more patients are using private health (often self-funded) has gone up by over 1 million since COVID to skip waiting lists to treat their conditions. These people aren't the elite, often they're middle class professionals who just want treatment in a timely manner.

I stand before you as a case and point, I supposed to have an appointment with a consultant in Feb, that was pushed to May and now to September. With PHI, I was seen 2 weeks ago and will 2-3 follow ups before September. A lot of people in our age bracket have little experience needing to access to NHS services and it shows when having this difficult conversations.



It’s not all government spending though… the NHS is one of the only systems where the hospitals are run by the government and healthcare workers are government employees. France has around 60% of government run hospitals and that figure in our country is about 80%.

As a country, we cry wolf whenever a party talks about private sector involvement. In all the healthcare systems in Europe and elsewhere, there is more active private sector involvement. Hospitals have more equipment, more clinicians, Conditions and pay for workers is better and the health outcomes for patients is better.

Again, the principles are the same - universal and everyone has equal access to treatment.

I don’t think we’ll charge for appointments nor should we, but why on Earth we’ve never implemented a penalty system for missed GP or hospital appointments Ill never know. They say ‘administrative burden’ but let’s be honest if people knew they’d be charged £30-40 for not bothering to cancel it would soon cut numbers down massively.

Have a two strike system, don’t penalise elderly or those with leaning difficulties.

Currently 14-15m per annum GP appointments are missed. That’s appointments that others could use to prevent illnesses/conditions from worsening and prevent some from having to turn up to A&E (which I heard costs the NHS £400 per visit !). Both we and the NHS need to be better

 

[rob9872]

Thought some of you might appreciate this ...

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

So you want to remove universality. That’s fine. But be honest. Don’t pretend you have some magic money saving bullet. You just think some people currently getting healthcare shouldn’t. Next step is for you to name these people.

What a ridiculous thing to say. Universality is a feature of most European healthcare systems and indeed the Australian system. Again, we use private hospitals in the NHS as things stand so it’s not incompatible with our model.

If the NHS dies because well meaning people thwart any rational debate around reforming it, that would be a great shame.

Ironically, your approach as I understand it is to change nothing? How very status quo.

 

[shmmeee]

I don’t think we’ll charge for appointments nor should we, but why on Earth we’ve never implemented a penalty system for missed GP or hospital appointments Ill never know. They say ‘administrative burden’ but let’s be honest if people knew they’d be charged £30-40 for not bothering to cancel it would soon cut numbers down massively.

Have a two strike system, don’t penalise elderly or those with leaning difficulties.

Currently 14-15m per annum GP appointments are missed. That’s appointments that others could use to prevent illnesses/conditions from worsening and prevent some from having to turn up to A&E (which I heard costs the NHS £400 per visit !). Both we and the NHS need to be better

You say that, but our numbers aren’t massively out of whack with private systems. In the US the figure can be up to 54% (!).

Interestingly it seems the number has risen along with the rise in telephone appointments, which would I assume also involve lower costs but not sure.

The changing face of missed appointments - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

On fine as a way to reduce behaviour generally, I always remember this story made famous by Freakanomics:

A Fine is a Price

The deterrence hypothesis predicts that the introduction of a penalty that leaves everything else unchanged will reduce the occurrence of the behavior subject t

papers.ssrn.com

Basically a nursery had issues with parents dropping kids late. So they introduced late fees. And the number of late parents went up because paying the fee absolved them of guilt for being late so they tried less hard to be on time.

 

[clint van damme]

On another note.

Keep politics out of football, right guys? Guys??

Why are Bristol City taking 2 coaches when the 52 of them would all fit on 1?
Let's hope Tommy hasn't got the organiser of that trip pencilled in for a cabinet post come the glorious day.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Why are Bristol City taking 2 coaches when the 52 of them would all fit on 1?
Let's hope Tommy hasn't got the organiser of that trip pencilled in for a cabinet post come the glorious day.

I’m assuming it’s just two Bristol fans taking 2 coaches packed full of Thatchers

 

[clint van damme]

I’m assuming it’s just two Bristol fans taking 2 coaches packed full of Thatchers

Can see a cider/lager schism developing as the day drags on, could get nasty.
I take it the chisel is following behind in an uber XL?