During the last labour governments term they increased spending on the NHS over that parliament by 5.7% per year.
During the coalitions term the increased NHS spending over that parliament by 0.8% per year.
Given that health inflation is recognised to run at between 3 - 4% per year, the Tories have made deep cuts.
Much more of the same and and our NHS will reach tipping point. I suspect that is exactly what Cameron and his ilk would love to see.
Vote Labour to save the only jewell left in this country.
By cutting administrators and adding 3,000 more nurses and 8,000 more doctors, according to Cameron on Radio 5 this morning.
So, vote labour if you want more highly paid administrators in your hospital, and good luck if you need actual medical care.
Oh and dont forget, with over a decade of unrestrained, unregulated immigration, the queues are sure to be shorter. (He didnt say that last bit, my local UKIP man suggested it.)
My main concern is the health service, so do I vote Conservative and watch it get decimated even further, or do I vote Labour so at least it has a chance to be saved. No brainer really.
For Welsh voters for their next Welsh Assembly elections, that sentence would go something like this:
"My main concern is the Welsh NHS, so do I vote Labour and watch it get decimated even further, or do I vote anyone else but Labour so at least it has a chance to be saved. No brainer really."
Its just white noise now Fiish................! You know, I know and everyone knows that the NHS will fall further on its arse if your mates get back in....
I don't really want the Tories back in but in a straight race between Tories and Labour they're the lesser of two evils on the grander scale of things.
I just have no idea where Labour get this reputation for being the best party to manage the NHS. The Welsh NHS under their management is doing shockingly compared to the English NHS and pretty much everything people hate about the Tories on the NHS (under-investment, top-down meddling, various crises, privatisation), Labour under Blair and Brown also did their fair share of the aforementioned acts. It's this sycophantic pro-Labour bleating from the sheep without any substance to back up their misguided faith that is the white noise, it's been going on for months now.
Every doctor, nurse, hca, dentist, midwife, phlebotomist, radiographer or even receptionist that I've personally spoken to within the NHS all say that they are not happy with the way things are and if we want things better we need Labour back. That's good enough for me.
Why did Labour cut the funding for nurse training at the end of their first term, leading to 8 years of overseas recruitment necessary in the Midlands to fill the places left vacant because of this action?
I really think the UK needs to ask itself whether the much-loved NHS (created in the immediate aftermath of WW2 and 70 years later still free at the point of use) is the most optimal way to provide world class healthcare today given the pressures today from so many directions.
The US system is heavily criticised and also has runaway cost inflation (albeit more heavily borne by the private sector than the taxpayer), but the quality of care for those fortunate enough to have good insurance (the vast majority by the way) is far superior to the UK equivalent in every way.
Thus a system which takes the best of the US system (private insurance-based) and the best of the NHS (free basic care for society's neediest) seems to be the way forward as the US itself has finally discovered thanks to Obamacare.
Admittedly approx 7-8 million people in the UK are already covered by some form of private health insurance, but they continue to rely in the main on the NHS for GP services, emergency care, childbirth etc..
This is the stock answer to everything and it genuinely depresses me. Margaret Thatcher's government introduced more administrators into the health service as she realised that Doctors and Nurse were sometimes better at treating people than obtaining the best value. We like to view these administrators of numbers on a piece of paper that serve no actual purpose, when the truth is of course a bit more complicated than that. Oh well – what does that matter!
A private system is alright for those who have the money to afford it...
Otherwise it's just a scheme between the Tories and their peers to make profit at the expense of hard working taxpayers.
But everyone is paying for the NHS through their taxes.....
An insurance-based health system can easily ensure the poorest are protected either through the maintenance of a (much reduced) NHS or via subsidised premiums.
A private system is alright for those who have the money to afford it...
Otherwise it's just a scheme between the Tories and their peers to make profit at the expense of hard working taxpayers.
Yes, that's a fine in-depth analysis of the situation....or possibly not. Here's an alternative picture. A friend's elderly parents benefited from a smallish final salary pension. Their evil employer had had the foresight to allow them to keep their health insurance into retirement. But that nice Gordon Brown decided it would be a good wheeze to add such benefits to the tax take so extended the "benefits in kind" regime to include taxation on such benefits into retirement. (But not presumably on the costs of his own gardener claimed for on allowances). The thing about health insurance is that its perceived value rises hugely at just the time (65+) that you need it most. So Gordon's extra tax take left a couple unable to get out much but big sports fans to make a decision as to whether to cancel their "free" health care or their Sky contract as they couldn't afford both Sky and their tax bill. I am looking forward to the return of Labour's "fairer society" - I've missed those nasty vindictive short-sighted policies that ended up adding a larger burden on the NHS.
SHG - why is health inflation higher than normal inflation?
Micks1950 answered your question. Year on year just keeping up with the new technology that patients expect is phenomenonly costly.
Some very good answers above but I'll give you an example from the field I know about.
20 years ago if a hospital bought a new CT scanner they could expect it to last and be effective for say 15 years. Now to all intents and purposes it will be technically obsolete in about five years. Why ? Because the information it provides is not good enough to satisfy the demands of the technology spin offs that use that data set. Cancer planning systems for example are only as good as the information you put into them. Treatments are year on year improving and becoming more complex. Complex needs good data otherwise it's not only inefficient but potentially dangerous.
20 years ago, cancer services didn't have real access to MRI or PET now it's crucial to combine the information from many modalities to create good treatment pathways and better outcomes. Outcomes that the public have a right and expect.
You can't go cheap on health. It doesn't work.
SHG. You obviously understand the issues faced by any government in trying to fund the bottomless pit that is the NHS. Why are you so quick to bag the Tories in favour of Labour, when you know as well as I do that the NHS is now a broken model that will never be able to be sufficiently funded in it's current form for all the reasons listed above, which seem to be recognised by many posters and I would think, the general public? Why do you propose a continuation of throwing good money after bad, whilst seemingly ridiculing Cameron for daring to consider an alternative option?
During the last labour governments term they increased spending on the NHS over that parliament by 5.7% per year.
During the coalitions term the increased NHS spending over that parliament by 0.8% per year.
Given that health inflation is recognised to run at between 3 - 4% per year, the Tories have made deep cuts.
Much more of the same and and our NHS will reach tipping point. I suspect that is exactly what Cameron and his ilk would love to see.
Vote Labour to save the only jewell left in this country.
By cutting administrators and adding 3,000 more nurses and 8,000 more doctors, according to Cameron on Radio 5 this morning.
So, vote labour if you want more highly paid administrators in your hospital, and good luck if you need actual medical care.
Oh and dont forget, with over a decade of unrestrained, unregulated immigration, the queues are sure to be shorter. (He didnt say that last bit, my local UKIP man suggested it.)
During the last labour governments term they increased spending on the NHS over that parliament by 5.7% per year.
During the coalitions term the increased NHS spending over that parliament by 0.8% per year.
Given that health inflation is recognised to run at between 3 - 4% per year, the Tories have made deep cuts.
Much more of the same and and our NHS will reach tipping point. I suspect that is exactly what Cameron and his ilk would love to see.
Vote Labour to save the only jewell left in this country.
By cutting administrators and adding 3,000 more nurses and 8,000 more doctors, according to Cameron on Radio 5 this morning.
So, vote labour if you want more highly paid administrators in your hospital, and good luck if you need actual medical care.
Oh and dont forget, with over a decade of unrestrained, unregulated immigration, the queues are sure to be shorter. (He didnt say that last bit, my local UKIP man suggested it.)
Its ok cutting any job that is not needed but who will be doing the admin work when these jobs go? The nurses and doctors? or are they not a proper jobs anyway and only existed to provide employment for masses of people?
During the last labour governments term they increased spending on the NHS over that parliament by 5.7% per year.
During the coalitions term the increased NHS spending over that parliament by 0.8% per year.
Given that health inflation is recognised to run at between 3 - 4% per year, the Tories have made deep cuts.
Much more of the same and and our NHS will reach tipping point. I suspect that is exactly what Cameron and his ilk would love to see.
Vote Labour to save the only jewell left in this country.
By cutting administrators and adding 3,000 more nurses and 8,000 more doctors, according to Cameron on Radio 5 this morning.
So, vote labour if you want more highly paid administrators in your hospital, and good luck if you need actual medical care.
Oh and dont forget, with over a decade of unrestrained, unregulated immigration, the queues are sure to be shorter. (He didnt say that last bit, my local UKIP man suggested it.)
If you're in a queue at an NHS hospital and the person in front of you is an immigrant, it's more likely that the immigrant is your healthcare provider than another patient.
A private system is alright for those who have the money to afford it...
Otherwise it's just a scheme between the Tories and their peers to make profit at the expense of hard working taxpayers.
But everyone is paying for the NHS through their taxes.....
An insurance-based health system can easily ensure the poorest are protected either through the maintenance of a (much reduced) NHS or via subsidised premiums.
The American health care system is the very last thing this country needs. No really. The very fecking last.
I have massive concerns for HMPS if the Tories get back in and continue their attempts to cut us to the bone. You may shrug your shoulders and say 'so, it's only scum prisoners, who cares' but the fact is, until life means life in this country, we're constantly sending out prisoners who have had little or sub-standard rehabilitation to live in your areas, streets and estates.
In 1997, Labour took office, following Margaret Thatcher and John Major's terms which inflicted two massive recessions, in 1981 and 1990.
In May 2010, David Cameron "inherited" an economy that was growing at 1% per annum, with wages growing faster than inflation. George Osborne increased VAT to 20% and introduced the severe austerity programme.
1) You forgot the bit where Thatcher was having to clean up a country widely denounced as the 'sick man of Europe' and was so poor bins weren't emptied for months and undertakers weren't being paid so bodies were piling up in morgues for weeks on end. The first recession was caused by successful measures to stop runaway inflation, the second recession was caused by global factors. In 1997 the UK had gone from being the sick man of Europe to one of the world's strongest performing economies and Blair and Brown were so impressed with the Tories they even stuck to the Tories' own spending plans up until 2001.
2) To achieve growth of 1% per annum and to keep inflation down in the midst of a global economic catastrophe, Brown had to double the national debt over the course of a few years. Believe me, there is nothing impressive about massive increases in public spending to then boast about growth levels, considering one of the components of the growth function is the level of public spending.
Why has nobody responded to this?? Is it because Fiiish is correct?
SHG - why is health inflation higher than normal inflation?
Micks1950 answered your question. Year on year just keeping up with the new technology that patients expect is phenomenonly costly.
Some very good answers above but I'll give you an example from the field I know about.
20 years ago if a hospital bought a new CT scanner they could expect it to last and be effective for say 15 years. Now to all intents and purposes it will be technically obsolete in about five years. Why ? Because the information it provides is not good enough to satisfy the demands of the technology spin offs that use that data set. Cancer planning systems for example are only as good as the information you put into them. Treatments are year on year improving and becoming more complex. Complex needs good data otherwise it's not only inefficient but potentially dangerous.
20 years ago, cancer services didn't have real access to MRI or PET now it's crucial to combine the information from many modalities to create good treatment pathways and better outcomes. Outcomes that the public have a right and expect.
You can't go cheap on health. It doesn't work.
SHG. You obviously understand the issues faced by any government in trying to fund the bottomless pit that is the NHS. Why are you so quick to bag the Tories in favour of Labour, when you know as well as I do that the NHS is now a broken model that will never be able to be sufficiently funded in it's current form for all the reasons listed above, which seem to be recognised by many posters and I would think, the general public? Why do you propose a continuation of throwing good money after bad, whilst seemingly ridiculing Cameron for daring to consider an alternative option?
This country spends less per head of population on health care than any of its western counterparts of similar wealth. France, Germany etc.
Perhaps if this country matched is health spending against the requirements of the population things might improve.
Nothing is more important than health. Nothing. We all winge about the cost when we don't need it but my god wait until you need to call on the NHS. It's a fantastic resource that people with more money than sense are penny pinching so they can buy a few more bottles of champagne.
We really really don't know what we have in the NHS. Beware.
During the last labour governments term they increased spending on the NHS over that parliament by 5.7% per year.
During the coalitions term the increased NHS spending over that parliament by 0.8% per year.
Given that health inflation is recognised to run at between 3 - 4% per year, the Tories have made deep cuts.
Much more of the same and and our NHS will reach tipping point. I suspect that is exactly what Cameron and his ilk would love to see.
Vote Labour to save the only jewell left in this country.
By cutting administrators and adding 3,000 more nurses and 8,000 more doctors, according to Cameron on Radio 5 this morning.
So, vote labour if you want more highly paid administrators in your hospital, and good luck if you need actual medical care.
Oh and dont forget, with over a decade of unrestrained, unregulated immigration, the queues are sure to be shorter. (He didnt say that last bit, my local UKIP man suggested it.)
Its ok cutting any job that is not needed but who will be doing the admin work when these jobs go? The nurses and doctors? or are they not a proper jobs anyway and only existed to provide employment for masses of people?
Is there any reason why the Conservatives have left A&E off their manifesto completely? It's nothing to do with their record on waiting times, surely?
Again, meaningless, unless you add in other factors that have had an effect on those targets. Like, in the last ten years, attendances at A&E have risen by 31% and now stand at a staggering 21.7mn a year. A significant part of that increase arises because of the way Labour screwed up the contracts for GPs, allowing them to opt out of seeing patients outside office hours. Are you sure you can trust Labour to run the NHS properly?
If folk are still gone vote for Labour after seeing that, the UK has got bigger problems than just having him at the helm.
You're right. A well-informed electorate should always be encouraged to choose whom to vote for, by being shown pictures of the party leaders looking ridiculous, instead of trying to gain an intelligent, fact-based insight into their ideals, policies and intentions.
In 1997, Labour took office, following Margaret Thatcher and John Major's terms which inflicted two massive recessions, in 1981 and 1990.
In May 2010, David Cameron "inherited" an economy that was growing at 1% per annum, with wages growing faster than inflation. George Osborne increased VAT to 20% and introduced the severe austerity programme.
1) You forgot the bit where Thatcher was having to clean up a country widely denounced as the 'sick man of Europe' and was so poor bins weren't emptied for months and undertakers weren't being paid so bodies were piling up in morgues for weeks on end. The first recession was caused by successful measures to stop runaway inflation, the second recession was caused by global factors. In 1997 the UK had gone from being the sick man of Europe to one of the world's strongest performing economies and Blair and Brown were so impressed with the Tories they even stuck to the Tories' own spending plans up until 2001.
2) To achieve growth of 1% per annum and to keep inflation down in the midst of a global economic catastrophe, Brown had to double the national debt over the course of a few years. Believe me, there is nothing impressive about massive increases in public spending to then boast about growth levels, considering one of the components of the growth function is the level of public spending.
Why has nobody responded to this?? Is it because Fiiish is correct?
My little bit about housing was a kind of response, mind you I don't blame you for missing it.
Comments
So, vote labour if you want more highly paid administrators in your hospital, and good luck if you need actual medical care.
Oh and dont forget, with over a decade of unrestrained, unregulated immigration, the queues are sure to be shorter. (He didnt say that last bit, my local UKIP man suggested it.)
Signs of a desperate campaign...
The US system is heavily criticised and also has runaway cost inflation (albeit more heavily borne by the private sector than the taxpayer), but the quality of care for those fortunate enough to have good insurance (the vast majority by the way) is far superior to the UK equivalent in every way.
Thus a system which takes the best of the US system (private insurance-based) and the best of the NHS (free basic care for society's neediest) seems to be the way forward as the US itself has finally discovered thanks to Obamacare.
Admittedly approx 7-8 million people in the UK are already covered by some form of private health insurance, but they continue to rely in the main on the NHS for GP services, emergency care, childbirth etc..
Otherwise it's just a scheme between the Tories and their peers to make profit at the expense of hard working taxpayers.
An insurance-based health system can easily ensure the poorest are protected either through the maintenance of a (much reduced) NHS or via subsidised premiums.
I am looking forward to the return of Labour's "fairer society" - I've missed those nasty vindictive short-sighted policies that ended up adding a larger burden on the NHS.
Why do you propose a continuation of throwing good money after bad, whilst seemingly ridiculing Cameron for daring to consider an alternative option?
Thanks for replies.
In my mind, that's what it boils down to. Why else would they go through the hassle of privatising the NHS?
I doubt relieving the taxpayer of the NHS burden would result in tax cuts for all. :-)
looks like Mr Bean ffs
This is fantastic.
This country spends less per head of population on health care than any of its western counterparts of similar wealth. France, Germany etc.
Perhaps if this country matched is health spending against the requirements of the population things might improve.
Nothing is more important than health. Nothing. We all winge about the cost when we don't need it but my god wait until you need to call on the NHS. It's a fantastic resource that people with more money than sense are penny pinching so they can buy a few more bottles of champagne.
We really really don't know what we have in the NHS. Beware.
Are you sure you can trust Labour to run the NHS properly?
interesting breakdown of what the big issues are, if it weren't for immigration the Tories would be kicking serious arse on the economy it seems