FlyTheNest

A haven
It is currently Tue 24 Apr, 2018 10:51 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Welcome to FTN. New posters are welcome to join the conversation. You can follow us on Twitter @FlythenestHaven You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room. Site admin and Moderators are volunteers who will respond as quickly as they are able to when made aware of any complaints. Please do not post copyrighted material without the original authors permission.



Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 183 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 1:45 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
There are upsides and downsides to all systems. A centralised single payer system like the NHS has the advantage of coverage and being cheap to deliver. It has two big downsides though

1. It is illiberal. That wasn't so much of a problem in 1945, I think it is now, and will increasingly become one.

2. As it is government funded, there is no guarantee it will be properly funded, and now it isn't. Some will answer "elect Labour then" but even if (which I doubt) we see a majority Labour government in power within the next decade, it wont be in power in perpetuity, or indeed looking at past experience all that long. Most of the NHS's history has been under Tory government, and probably will be in the future.

Looking at data on coverage, cost, choice and, most importantly, outcomes, I think the we could do better than the NHS, but the transition costs are too high. So best to try and make do with what we have. It is a national religion and any reform is bitterly opposed, whoever puts it forward.

Other things I know: you can't use your own experience to judge it. I've had two bad experiences with the NHS this year, one because of doctor incompetence, the other just the usual almost unbelievable delays. But the system is so huge that you cannot extapolate from that. Even a lifetime living and working in the NHS won't give you the information you need to judge it.

So saying "you need to have lived in country X and have experienced its system to judge it" is a bit dim.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 1:51 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 11:22 am
Posts: 14378
Has thanked: 79921 times
Been thanked: 13314 times
PorFavor wrote:
Good morfternoon.

Good-afternoon, PorFavor!
I've missed you.
Do consider fewer adventuresome jaunts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 2:08 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 19749
Has thanked: 16660 times
Been thanked: 29359 times
She has been speaking to extremely dubious characters.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 2:09 pm 
Offline
First Secretary of State

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 3207
Has thanked: 860 times
Been thanked: 5543 times
SpinningHugo wrote:
There are upsides and downsides to all systems. A centralised single payer system like the NHS has the advantage of coverage and being cheap to deliver. It has two big downsides though

1. It is illiberal. That wasn't so much of a problem in 1945, I think it is now, and will increasingly become one.

2. As it is government funded, there is no guarantee it will be properly funded, and now it isn't. Some will answer "elect Labour then" but even if (which I doubt) we see a majority Labour government in power within the next decade, it wont be in power in perpetuity, or indeed looking at past experience all that long. Most of the NHS's history has been under Tory government, and probably will be in the future.

Looking at data on coverage, cost, choice and, most importantly, outcomes, I think the we could do better than the NHS, but the transition costs are too high. So best to try and make do with what we have. It is a national religion and any reform is bitterly opposed, whoever puts it forward.

Other things I know: you can't use your own experience to judge it. I've had two bad experiences with the NHS this year, one because of doctor incompetence, the other just the usual almost unbelievable delays. But the system is so huge that you cannot extapolate from that. Even a lifetime living and working in the NHS won't give you the information you need to judge it.

So saying "you need to have lived in country X and have experienced its system to judge it" is a bit dim.



I would suggest I know the Swiss system and how it works much better than you do - or are you telling me you do know?

I am in no position to extrapolate outside that apart from what I know from the UK system

The Swiss system is relatively simple to understand - there is a basic insurance and you build on that due to ability to pay. The insurance companies will try to avoid paying if they can and there are often huge arguments whether something is an accident or illness (as these are covered differently)

In order to reduce monthly cost there is a franchise system so you pay around £2000 before insurance kicks in which can be an issue for those with chronic conditions and often hospital stays are not included

Once ill the care is generally terrific but that is not the whole story is it?

I do not like having to share my medical history with an insurance company, especially their sales staff who you need to engage with if you want to take advantage of 'competition'

I suggest you read Willow's posts as they seem to know a lot more of the general comparisons than I do, and I guess you do.

All I would like to add is there is a fair agreement and evidence that health is linked to wealth. Switzerland is a wealthier country than the UK and the focus on healthy living is much more pronounced here. That means looking at just outcomes can be misleading - and of course is the difference in overall spending as % of GDP and per capita

Is the NHS the 'best' system? - I would guess no system can be shown to be better as the culture, infrastructure, the societal and even the environmental conditions differ so greatly - and so something that works in one place will not necessarily work elsewhere.

All systems need continual improvement but they also need investment and good management - the Tories have shown that they cannot be trusted on either


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 2:19 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 19749
Has thanked: 16660 times
Been thanked: 29359 times
The biggest dimfuckery as Willow alluded to is neglect to consider wider contexts and interconnecting systems,the salient feature particularly since 2010 has been the purposeful attempts to residualise indisputable vast cost saving (not least the NHS)investment to account for health and related needs,bespoke income for such purposes are the cheapest and most efficient use of resources.I let others decide whether fourty years experience on "both" sides can be so easilly dismissed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 2:21 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 11:22 am
Posts: 14378
Has thanked: 79921 times
Been thanked: 13314 times
HindleA wrote:
She has been speaking to extremely dubious characters.

the Monaco connections?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 2:24 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 11:22 am
Posts: 14378
Has thanked: 79921 times
Been thanked: 13314 times
The NHS is 'illiberal'?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 2:24 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 1:40 pm
Posts: 4564
Has thanked: 9836 times
Been thanked: 11422 times
Umm....

Quote:
Emma Kennedy
@EmmaKennedy
Sorry, but I’m going to keep banging on about this. Toby Young disguised himself as a woman in order to have sexual contact with lesbians. He wrote he wanted them to “find his penis”. This is not a man who should be elevated to anything.#marr
10:02 am · 7 Jan 2018


https://mobile.twitter.com/EmmaKennedy/ ... 0375783424

This was so jaw-dropping, I was doubtful about re-posting it, until I followed a link posted in the replies to the actual article:

http://www.nosacredcows.co.uk/golden_ol ... ticle.html

What an absolute child. :roll:

_________________
“Find a nice, self sufficient hilltop, and fortify it.” - The Kraken Wakes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 2:29 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 11:22 am
Posts: 14378
Has thanked: 79921 times
Been thanked: 13314 times
Commonwealth Fund latest
Quote:
Mirror, Mirror 2017: International Comparison Reflects Flaws and Opportunities for Better U.S. Health Care
Performance Varies Among Health Systems

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/interac ... or-mirror/

Excellent posts from friends here on this topic this morning, thank you all


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 2:29 pm 
Offline
First Secretary of State

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 3207
Has thanked: 860 times
Been thanked: 5543 times
citizenJA wrote:
The NHS is 'illiberal'?


apparently

I think the argument is that it is monolithic and precludes the addition of different layers based on the ability to pay (if I remember previous discussions)

Some people would like the option to get better room, better food, quicker access etc based on ability to pay for it

The fact that this would introduce the need for a bureaucracy to manage this is not taken into consideration.....

I do know (because my sister is one) that there are people employed now to check patient's entitlement to treatment now - apparently very few cases are found (quite a lot are people like me with an NHS number, NI number and British Passport) but it takes a lot of resources as the UK has no straightforward way to prove residence


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 2:30 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 11:18 am
Posts: 9861
Has thanked: 19144 times
Been thanked: 17581 times
So here we are then. Page 3. Who knew?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 2:34 pm 
Offline
First Secretary of State

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 3207
Has thanked: 860 times
Been thanked: 5543 times
citizenJA wrote:
Commonwealth Fund latest
Quote:
Mirror, Mirror 2017: International Comparison Reflects Flaws and Opportunities for Better U.S. Health Care
Performance Varies Among Health Systems

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/interac ... or-mirror/

Excellent posts from friends here on this topic this morning, thank you all



I think Willow helped a lot here - I can only speak for one (and in my view quite flawed) system

I think the point is that these comparisons are difficult and imprecise so we should not be too parochial or dogmatic - there are some clear outliers there (like the US) though - and from my own personal experience I would always support the universal and equitable approach of the NHS.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 2:47 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 19749
Has thanked: 16660 times
Been thanked: 29359 times
The best hospitals have a shared care/mutually beneficial approach,communication,respect,trust is key eg.if feeding,ablutions etc the time consuming but essentials are a problem,facillate,be flexible in visiting hours,allow/engage relatives/friends(obviously with patients agreement)in such endeavours.I have had "interesting" discussions with the more prison warder view staff over such things but it seemed to be changing.Equally,instead of bemoaning staff and seemingly standing by while people were drinking from vases,do something about it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 2:47 pm 
Offline
First Secretary of State

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 3207
Has thanked: 860 times
Been thanked: 5543 times
Anyone see how Leeds did today?

;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 2:50 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
citizenJA wrote:
The NHS is 'illiberal'?



Yes of course.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 2:50 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 11:22 am
Posts: 14378
Has thanked: 79921 times
Been thanked: 13314 times
howsillyofme1 wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
---
Quote:
Mirror, Mirror 2017: International Comparison Reflects Flaws and Opportunities for Better U.S. Health Care
Performance Varies Among Health Systems
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/interac ... or-mirror/
---
---
I think the point is that these comparisons are difficult and imprecise so we should not be too parochial or dogmatic - there are some clear outliers there (like the US) though - and from my own personal experience I would always support the universal and equitable approach of the NHS.
(cJA edit)
Yes, exactly. From the report linked above...
Quote:
The Health Systems Achieving Top Marks Do So in Diverse Ways

The three countries with the best overall health system performance scores have strikingly different health care systems.
All three provide universal coverage and access, but do so in different ways, suggesting that high performance can be achieved through a variety of payment and organizational approaches.

Experts generally group universal coverage systems into three categories: Beveridge systems, single-payer systems, and multipayer systems. These three systems are represented among our highest performers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 2:52 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 1:40 pm
Posts: 4564
Has thanked: 9836 times
Been thanked: 11422 times
Quote:
2. As it is government funded, there is no guarantee it will be properly funded, and now it isn't. Some will answer "elect Labour then" but even if (which I doubt) we see a majority Labour government in power within the next decade, it wont be in power in perpetuity, or indeed looking at past experience all that long. Most of the NHS's history has been under Tory government, and probably will be in the future.


This comment seems to suggest that the structure of healthcare funding in the UK makes our healthcare system uniquely vulnerable to political mismanagement and interference. Yet healthcare and how to pay for it is a hugely political topic in the USA right now and it seems to me that an individual's access to certain treatments and services can always be changed on the whim of government. As such, I find this a weak argument against the NHS but a very strong argument against our constitutional democracy as it's clearly our political system that is failing in this respect, not our healthcare system, if the NHS is being underfunded.

_________________
“Find a nice, self sufficient hilltop, and fortify it.” - The Kraken Wakes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 2:52 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 19749
Has thanked: 16660 times
Been thanked: 29359 times
"We can now concentrate on not getting promoted"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 2:55 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 11:22 am
Posts: 14378
Has thanked: 79921 times
Been thanked: 13314 times
SpinningHugo wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
The NHS is 'illiberal'?
Yes of course.
Good. Effective national healthcare provision requires it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 2:58 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 19749
Has thanked: 16660 times
Been thanked: 29359 times
Calling me a "liberal" is as bad as "Tory",to me.Freedom to throw others under a bus,never appealed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 3:00 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
Willow904 wrote:
Quote:
2. As it is government funded, there is no guarantee it will be properly funded, and now it isn't. Some will answer "elect Labour then" but even if (which I doubt) we see a majority Labour government in power within the next decade, it wont be in power in perpetuity, or indeed looking at past experience all that long. Most of the NHS's history has been under Tory government, and probably will be in the future.


This comment seems to suggest that the structure of healthcare funding in the UK makes our healthcare system uniquely vulnerable to political mismanagement and interference. Yet healthcare and how to pay for it is a hugely political topic in the USA right now and it seems to me that an individual's access to certain treatments and services can always be changed on the whim of government. As such, I find this a weak argument against the NHS but a very strong argument against our constitutional democracy as it's clearly our political system that is failing in this respect, not our healthcare system, if the NHS is being underfunded.



As so often, just comparing the UK with the US (the very worst system) is unhelpful.

If you have a system that isn't funded solely out of cetnral taxation, but instead also draws on insurance premiums, employer contributions, and pay as you go charges, it just isn't as vulnerable to cuts in state funding as it doesn't solely depend on them. It just won't matter as much whether party X or Y is in power.

The US and the UK seem particularly bad with respect to healthcare being such major political issues, partly because the funding in both societies is unstable. Infamously, we probably wouldn't have had the vote for Brexit if the NHS had not been such an issue (not just the ludicrous £350m pledge, but also the idea that immigrants are taking up precious NHS resources).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 3:03 pm 
Offline
First Secretary of State

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 3207
Has thanked: 860 times
Been thanked: 5543 times
SpinningHugo wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
The NHS is 'illiberal'?



Yes of course.



I find comments like this quite unhelpful really - in some ways the NHS is 'illiberal' or I would rather say monolithic as I am not sure an organisation like the NHS could ever be seen in terms as 'liberal'

It can be slow to change and it can be too conservative but that is the price the majority seem to be prepared to pay for the equitable and assured access to healthcare

I know from previous posts that you mean that you would like to be able to pay for a single, better room and other perks and that is what you would like to liberalise. We have seen when the NHS has previously tried to 'liberalise' in this respect by allowing access to entertainment systems etc it really has not had a positive reception and is resented by the patients

There is always some scope to improve but I think the issue at the moment is that people are dying on stretchers in corridors so calling for provision of a nicer room for someone with a bit of money could be seen as, at best, misguided and, at worst, callous

Liberalising in the extent of bringing in competition and private provision is not, in my view, proven to add anything and my own personal view is that it is just another example of moving public money into the pockets of private companies to no benefit to the taxpayer


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 3:03 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
citizenJA wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
The NHS is 'illiberal'?
Yes of course.
Good. Effective national healthcare provision requires it.



Which is the politicial choice. If you want it cheap, make it illiberal. If you want more choice, it will cost. See (if you want an analogy) the difference between Lidl and Sainsbury's.

If you're time rich and money poor, this lack of choice is what you'll prefer. If you're either time poor or cash rich, it won't be. I'm (often) time poor, which is why I find the NHS deeply frustrating when I have to use it, but I (hopefully) understand and accept it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 3:08 pm 
Offline
First Secretary of State

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 3207
Has thanked: 860 times
Been thanked: 5543 times
I may be a Marxist but I find the idea of choice and competition in healthcare to be distasteful

If you allow someone to access healthcare more quickly in the NHS on the ability to pay then those who don't will have their treatment delayed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 3:16 pm 
Offline
First Secretary of State

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 3207
Has thanked: 860 times
Been thanked: 5543 times
Anyway, as someone who is very jaded with the political system, I know that the days of the NHS are numbered

The British people want the NHS but they continue to vote in a party that wants to destroy the ethos of the NHS and move towards more privately run and the introduction of ability to pay - possibly eventually letting in the concept of personal insurance

We have seen how monopolistic 'markets' work - in water, utilities and rail where there is no real choice and costs increase to the consumer with everything being hidden away by the concept of 'client confidentiality'


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 3:17 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 19749
Has thanked: 16660 times
Been thanked: 29359 times
What absolute nonsense,please outline your evidence,even disregarding that more often than not the self declared "time poor" tend to spend an inordinate amount of time telling everybody how little time they have whilst doing naff all,that the "time rich" don't want the best possible/accept less.for themselves or loved ones.Patronising piffle.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 3:19 pm 
Offline
First Secretary of State

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 3207
Has thanked: 860 times
Been thanked: 5543 times
HindleA wrote:
What absolute nonsense,please outline your evidence,even disregarding that more often than not the self declared "time poor" tend to spend an inordinate amount of time telling everybody how little time they have whilst doing naff all,that the "time rich" don't want the best possible/accept less.for themselves or loved ones.Patronising piffle.


Perhaps could spend less time posting on the internet? May help free up some of his time?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 3:19 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
Put another way, if you wanted to maintain the same level of basic provision for all as we now havem whilst introducing more choice, it would take more resources to increase provision (which you pay for from the contributions of those wanting more).

Which is why the UK system is relatively cheap when compared to other systems which offer the same (or better) level of basic provision but offering more choice (like almost all other European systems).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 3:24 pm 
Offline
First Secretary of State

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 3207
Has thanked: 860 times
Been thanked: 5543 times
Quote:
If you're time rich and money poor, this lack of choice is what you'll prefer. If you're either time poor or cash rich, it won't be. I'm (often) time poor, which is why I find the NHS deeply frustrating when I have to use it, but I (hopefully) understand and accept it.


Correct me if I am wrong someone but you can decide to go private without using the NHS - if you are time poor and cash-rich then you could just pay privately?

Or get your own private insurance - you just cannot use the NHS resources once you have decided to pay for faster access I believe is the case

I feel some sympathy for the time poor, cash-poor especially with unsympathetic employers - but in their cases being able to pay for quick access is probably not an option - and the NHS is actually a joy for them to behold! If there is a two-tier system then these will be the ones who get pushed to the back of the queue


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 3:26 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 19749
Has thanked: 16660 times
Been thanked: 29359 times
Not totally immune from it,myself,to be fair.It was just the "generalisational" depiction(s)Anyway,I really haven't got time for this ....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 3:29 pm 
Offline
First Secretary of State

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 3207
Has thanked: 860 times
Been thanked: 5543 times
SpinningHugo wrote:
Put another way, if you wanted to maintain the same level of basic provision for all as we now havem whilst introducing more choice, it would take more resources to increase provision (which you pay for from the contributions of those wanting more).

Which is why the UK system is relatively cheap when compared to other systems which offer the same (or better) level of basic provision but offering more choice (like almost all other European systems).



Why don't you stand for Parliament on that platform then - reform of the NHS so those who have more money can access perks that the poorer can't?

Can I suggest you try somewhere in South Wales or the North East to detect the popularity of this idea?


Last edited by howsillyofme1 on Sun 07 Jan, 2018 3:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 3:30 pm 
Offline
First Secretary of State

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 3207
Has thanked: 860 times
Been thanked: 5543 times
HindleA wrote:
Not totally immune from it,myself,to be fair.It was just the "generalisational" depiction(s)Anyway,I really haven't got time for this ....


you never claimed to be 'time-poor' though MrA......


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 3:33 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 11:22 am
Posts: 14378
Has thanked: 79921 times
Been thanked: 13314 times
howsillyofme1 wrote:
I may be a Marxist but I find the idea of choice and competition in healthcare to be distasteful

If you allow someone to access healthcare more quickly in the NHS on the ability to pay then those who don't will have their treatment delayed
Exactly what I meant by my post up yonder, well said


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 3:35 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 19749
Has thanked: 16660 times
Been thanked: 29359 times
I have hinted/suggested ways of facillitating "choice" that overwhelmingly matters,certainly in terms of making an in hospital.experience better,that is mutually beneficial.People are different,but having someone who knows you's involvement would certainly trounce the size of a TV screen etc in priority terms,for me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 3:38 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 19749
Has thanked: 16660 times
Been thanked: 29359 times
@Howsilly it depends,obviously if I didn't/haven't got something done,it was because I was far too busy.....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 3:38 pm 
Offline
First Secretary of State

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 3207
Has thanked: 860 times
Been thanked: 5543 times
citizenJA wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:
I may be a Marxist but I find the idea of choice and competition in healthcare to be distasteful

If you allow someone to access healthcare more quickly in the NHS on the ability to pay then those who don't will have their treatment delayed
Exactly what I meant by my post up yonder, well said



The issue is that if you introduce this type of service is that lots of people will try to get access to the care quicker by paying for it - and how then is it prioritised, or then becomes no different than if you hadn't paid

Those who will benefit will be the richest who will always be able to pay more and the ones who lose will those who are unable to pay

There is also a risk that people will try to pay for things that they cannot afford - the British, culturally, are more accepting of debt than the Europeans so I can see there being loans for health access being offered

What can seem trivial to begin with can open the door for lots of subsequent issues

Let us concentrate on making better what is actually a very well regarded systems by the academics and not looking to undermine its ethos


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 4:04 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 19749
Has thanked: 16660 times
Been thanked: 29359 times
I think this choice thing is disingenuous.eg.if the situation arises where you need a wheelchair,they are a variety of ways of getting one,bespoke allowances may or not be used towards the cost,maintenance etc in general mobility needs.The majority of my posts are about facillitating choice.Ironically,it is these such choices that particularly inflame,the "free car" brigade what was wrong with the green threewheeler death trap etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 4:13 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 19749
Has thanked: 16660 times
Been thanked: 29359 times
The Government has purposefully attempted to remove "choice" on the fakery of already "given"/need attended to.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 5:08 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 19749
Has thanked: 16660 times
Been thanked: 29359 times
In between undertaking my duties of supreme leader of both the known and unknown Universe,happened to spot this,obviously I haven't got time to read it in full...


https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ood-forest

Ineos 'misled' public over fracking in Sherwood Forest.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 5:25 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:27 pm
Posts: 5560
Has thanked: 1888 times
Been thanked: 9298 times
I recall Andy Burnham launching a really ambitious proposal for the future of the NHS and its integration with social care, written I suspect in the main by Debbie Abrahams.

I wonder if it's worth a dust down.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 5:28 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:27 pm
Posts: 5560
Has thanked: 1888 times
Been thanked: 9298 times
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2015/ ... ing-vision

labours-10-year-plan-health-and-social-care-bold-and-compelling-vision

From 2015
Quote:
But the thinking has moved on – Andy acknowledged the influence of a number of reports in shaping the plan, notably two independent commissions led by Sir John Oldham, and the Commission on the Future of Health and Social Care in England led by Dame Kate Barker. But in several respects Labour’s plan marks a decisive break, not only from the policies of other political parties, but from Labour’s approach when in government. This is most striking in the unequivocal rejection of markets in the NHS – though not apparently the separation of commissioning and provider roles.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 5:50 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 19749
Has thanked: 16660 times
Been thanked: 29359 times
Letter to Gauke from Mo Stewart.

https://blueannoyed.wordpress.com/2018/ ... o-receive/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 5:51 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 11:22 am
Posts: 14378
Has thanked: 79921 times
Been thanked: 13314 times
HindleA wrote:
In between undertaking my duties of supreme leader of both the known and unknown Universe,happened to spot this,obviously I haven't got time to read it in full...

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ood-forest

Ineos 'misled' public over fracking in Sherwood Forest.
The dangers of hydraulic fracturing are known. CH4, methane, shale gas, a fossil fuel more successful at trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in smaller amounts than CO2. This is a gift to fossil fuel corporations - nothing more. It's insane allowing hydraulic fracturing in the UK. There's no need to do it. Costs of renewable energy sources fall making them the best investment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 6:09 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 19749
Has thanked: 16660 times
Been thanked: 29359 times
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... e-sothebys


Fragment of Nelson's flag from Battle of Trafalgar up for sale


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 6:16 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm
Posts: 19749
Has thanked: 16660 times
Been thanked: 29359 times
I'm hoping to getIt's expected to get £100,000


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 7:25 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 11:18 am
Posts: 9861
Has thanked: 19144 times
Been thanked: 17581 times
HindleA wrote:
I'm hoping to getIt's expected to get £100,000


Would you buy a used flag from this man?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 7:30 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 11:22 am
Posts: 14378
Has thanked: 79921 times
Been thanked: 13314 times
Certainly not


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 7:56 pm 
Online
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 8:26 pm
Posts: 7176
Has thanked: 717 times
Been thanked: 15725 times
howsillyofme1 wrote:
Anyone see how Leeds did today?

;)


Let's not forget Arsenal :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 7:57 pm 
Offline
First Secretary of State

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 3207
Has thanked: 860 times
Been thanked: 5543 times
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:
Anyone see how Leeds did today?

;)


Let's not forget Arsenal :)



I don't think we should.....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jan, 2018 8:06 pm 
Online
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 8:26 pm
Posts: 7176
Has thanked: 717 times
Been thanked: 15725 times
Btw my response to "the NHS is illiberal" is - "even if it is, so what?"


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 183 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], frog222, gilsey, refitman, RogerOThornhill and 43 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group