There has been a disgusting rise in food bank use which is totally unacceptable.
I thought I'd made my position clear, but here in bold -hope this answers your question. I just think 'nurses using foodbanks' is a great emotional image but it may be without foundation? Better to be accurate, surely?
If the bloke sadly downsizes his Range Rover to a smaller unfamiliar car and has a serious accident, he might need to be rushed to Accident and Emergency. Do you see where I'm going with this?
He seems like someone that would plan for the future as much as possible, so I'd guess he had private medical cover.
What jobs are being created by Corporation Tax cuts? Mimimum wage at best, but probably zero hours. I'd guess the promotion pyramid these days is pretty broad at the bottom. The lack of a true "market economy" contributes to this.
I was recent working for a company that pays monthly for a well known accounting software. The boss phoned their helpline and expecting a wait, put her call on speakerphone. 'We are very busy at the moment and your call will be answered in approximately 35 minutes.' The four of us in the office looked at each other absolutely gob-smacked! How can a major PLC think this constitutes customer service?
If the bloke sadly downsizes his Range Rover to a smaller unfamiliar car and has a serious accident, he might need to be rushed to Accident and Emergency. Do you see where I'm going with this?
He seems like someone that would plan for the future as much as possible, so I'd guess he had private medical cover.
I reckon the NHS represents a bit of a plan for the future. Am I right in saying that private medical stuff often utilises NHS resources (and pay for it), or is the private medical world a comprehensive stand alone system?
If the bloke sadly downsizes his Range Rover to a smaller unfamiliar car and has a serious accident, he might need to be rushed to Accident and Emergency. Do you see where I'm going with this?
He seems like someone that would plan for the future as much as possible, so I'd guess he had private medical cover.
I'm not looking for any argument, but has there been any documented evidence to show if any/how many nurses use food banks? I've spent some time researching and have found a couple of Nursing Times reports eg a couple of 22/23 year old single parent student nurses who said they visited for baby food. Also last year in The Times The Royal College of Nursing said that more than 700 nurses and healthcare assistants had applied for grants to cope with the cost of food, travel, rent or mortgage payments in 2016, a 50 per cent increase on 2010. Are HCA's nurses? Otherwise I've drawn a blank.
There has been a disgusting rise in food bank use which is totally unacceptable.
Happy to be corrected, but it does seem an emotive 'club' being bandied about by some.
Without knowing what the number is, what would you say is an acceptable number of key, critical healthcare workers working full-time, having to queue up for free food? Because I'm absolutely certain that, in 21st century Britain, anywhere north of zero is a shameful disgrace.
I'd have thought 28. All of them have pill and gambling addictions too though. (Only joking in case you can't tell.)
If the bloke sadly downsizes his Range Rover to a smaller unfamiliar car and has a serious accident, he might need to be rushed to Accident and Emergency. Do you see where I'm going with this?
He seems like someone that would plan for the future as much as possible, so I'd guess he had private medical cover.
If the bloke sadly downsizes his Range Rover to a smaller unfamiliar car and has a serious accident, he might need to be rushed to Accident and Emergency. Do you see where I'm going with this?
He seems like someone that would plan for the future as much as possible, so I'd guess he had private medical cover.
So where ARE these privately run A&Es then?
"UK Private hospitals provide around 11,200 beds for in-hospital stays.
The number of beds available in private hospitals for treating mental illness rose to 8647 in 2008, which represents an increase of 35% in just 5 years. The private sector provides 24% of all beds for mental health patients with the remainder in the NHS."
As for numbers of private hospitals, have a look at the font of all knowledge:
I reckon the NHS represents a bit of a plan for the future. Am I right in saying that private medical stuff often utilises NHS resources (and pay for it), or is the private medical world a comprehensive stand alone system?
Only you know if you're right in saying something, fella.
I reckon the NHS represents a bit of a plan for the future. Am I right in saying that private medical stuff often utilises NHS resources (and pay for it), or is the private medical world a comprehensive stand alone system?
It all depends on the nature of the treatment. From experience, Danny is a private patient at the Christie Clinic in Manchester which is attached to the Christie NHS Cancer Hospital. Most treatment is within the clinic itself but things like MRI/CT scans and surgical procedures are undertaken using NHS resources, chargeable to the Clinic and then in turn to my private health insurer.
There is no private hospital in the country that could, for example, undertake a heart transplant - that would need to use NHS resources but the surgical team would charge as part of their private work they undertake.
This article shows just how much we spend comparatively to other nations on health care as a proportion of GDP. Certainly not the picture most of the press portrays of how expensive the NHS is.
But this from the ONS paints a different picture by looking at the figures in a different way. And one in which the NHS spends a larger percentage of total healthcare spend than any other G7 countries on publicly-funded healthcare!
The ONS also says "the UK also had a higher share of healthcare expenditure by the public sector than most other member states of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which had an average public sector share for healthcare spending of 71.8%".
So most other countries have a higher percentage of health care funded privately than we do?
So, confused? I know I am.
The graph shows the share of total healthcare expenditure derived from the public sector. On that basis, it's no surpprise that the UK leads the chart: it's saying that 83.3% of the money spent on healthcare in the UK is spent by the public sector. By contrast, in the United States, the majority of healthcare services are paid for privately, ie by payments from patients and by health insurance payments.
Thanks v much for your input. But I'm afraid I'm still confused! The other data from The King's Fund tell a different story. They say we pay a lower percentage of GDP than most. (If I read it right.)
So either both can't both be right; or our GDP per capita is well out of kilter with everyone else's (which might be the case if separate commentary on UK productivity levels is to be believed); or they are both wrong. The King's Fund while a not-for-profit organisation still has an agenda, as it's stated aim is "working to improve health and care in England". So, for example saying the percentage spend in the EU had moved on to 10% of GDP by 2009, might not be because EU countries had spent more actual folding stuff, it might be because their GDP had faired less well than ours. (I don't know but that's a possibility if you factor in Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain).
Hopefully the ONS is not in a position where it could be accused of bias. BUT and it's a big but, according to reports like this pnhp.org/news/2016/january/government-funds-nearly-two-thirds-of-us-health-care-costs-american-journal-of-pub Most healthcare in the US is paid for by the State and indeed (presumably because of their higher health care costs) the US Govt. pays more in actual money per capita than ours does! Which puts that ONS figure for the US well out of kilter.
The Kings Fund data shows the proportion of each country's GDP that is made up of public and private sector healthcare. In the case of the UK it's 8.5%. So, in other words, if you add up all the money spent in the UK on healthcare, including public money spent by the Government (mostly NHS) and money spent on private health (a mix of individuals' payments for healthcare and health insurance "payouts" used for healthcare) it comes to 8.5% of the UK's total GDP. This percentage is more than the equivalent percentage for some countries (eg Finland and Ireland) and less than several others.
The ONS data shows that, if you take that total amount spent on healthcare, a bit more than two-thirds is public money (71.8%). For many other countries in the G7, that figure is much less, because much more of their healthcare spend has to be found from private sources (eg individuals and insurance).
The two sets of data don't conflict at all. In short, we spend less (as a proportion of GDP) on healthcare than many countries; and most of what we do spend comes out of public money (ie the Government uses Treasury money) as opposed to each of us having to pay for our own healthcare. In even shorter... we all chip in a bit so we all get healthcare, and by doing so it works out better value.
So logically we will be in line with other high spending countries by increasing the scope of private health insurance? Either we are evaluating the adequacy of funding the NHS or comparing total health care spend with other countries, they are separate issues.
If you bring in GDP spend comparisons with other countries you must also debate the role of private care, which is prevalent in all other countries against which we are comparing ourselves. It is heresy to even suggest that one of the reasons we are lagging behind MIGHT be because we do not make best use of private health services, something other countries manage quite happily without tearing themselves apart with ideological arguments on public v private involvement. The only thing which is sacrosanct as far as I am concerned is medical attention free at the point of delivery. That has got nothing to do with privatisation of services.
All doctors and consultants are on self employed contracts, so are part of the private care system, as well as providing contracted services to the NHS. Imagine what would happen if they were currently all employed like nurses are, by the NHS, and we suggested the privatisation of doctors to end up with the current system, so that they could earn more money by restricting the time given to the NHS and free up time for charging fees. What could be currently "privatised" that is more privatised than the current system.
Doctors in 1948 refused to join the NHS, and have always retained that position. It means the NHS is dependant on a monopolistic private sector service under the control of one of the most powerful unions in the UK, the BMA, to provide GP services and treat patients. If doctors can make a profit out of the NHS what's the difference if other services are provided by profit making enterprises?
Anyone who says you cannot get the same care if profit is the motive has never been treated privately. The danger is the incompetence of NHS procurement. I bet Capita could do operations really cheap, that would appeal to NHS managers, gives a bigger margin for their bonuses.
Not all doctors are self employed. You do talk a lot of twaddle.
Most GP's are but hospital doctors are employed by the NHS on contracts just like everyone else who works for the NHS. Some consultants also have a private practice but not all.
Just as am example, all full time NHS Consultants (not junior doctors, but Consultants) earn £80k - most earn around £100k and the top 20% earn £120k. That doesn't include their private practice income (if they do any) which can be upwards of £50k pa. Under labout they will all be paying more tax - and I expect in to be at least another 5%. You may think they have got off lightly under the Tories / Coalition, but they haven't had a pay rise for 7 years (not even the 1% that the nurses got) and during that time they have seen their pension contributions more than double (from 6% to 13.5%) , their final salary scheme close & the lesser career average scheme increase the retirement age from 60 to 65. Now you may not have much sympathy for someone earning in excess of £100k, but their living standards have fallen further than a lot of "normal" working class folk. I'm not defending them. just putting over the facts that more people have been affected by "austerity" than you think.
Have I missed something? When did 'Labours' become a legitimate term to refer the the Labour Party? Just because the Tory Party can be replaced with the plural of Tory does not mean you can replace the Labour Party with the plural of Labour. It is not right and it will never be right. There is a clear grammatical reason why it doesn't work but I can't put my finger on it at the moment.
Edit: So I asked a friend who told me that labour is primarily a noun, and an abstract noun at that. Where as liberal, tory and conservative are adjectives.
I have no idea if you're correct or not. It's just me being amused that just about every other party you can think of (apart from UKIP), gets to have an "s" on the end when talking about its collective state. I didn't see why the Labours deserved to be left out. But perhaps it should be the Labourers? Or if Jeremy Corbyn shagged a poodle maybe there would be labouroodles. Or was that something to do with Labradors I forget.
Mate, I know you are having a laugh, but I had to stop reading your posts some pages back because "the labours" was just getting on my tits so much.
Higher corporation taxes work in other G7 countries.
I think we can raise it to 25% without too much risk.
I don't know, so I'm asking. Do these other countries have the equivalent of employers' national insurance contributions?
If we take the example of a man on £80k per year, his employer will also be paying £9,913.37 to HMRC for the privilege of employing him. If that is factored in does it create an entirely different picture? Are we really comparing like with like? It's a tax on employment, sure but maybe a cleaner, better, more efficient way of getting tax receipts off businesses, especially global corporations.
Oh yes, the French certainly do and I think the Germans too, and in the French case way way higher than in the UK. I believe French employers may pay as much as 35% on top of the employee's salary. That is the case here in CZ, and I must say I have huge problem with it. The Slovaks changed it by capping it, and this drove their economic growth since 2004 (but the current idiot undid a lot of that good work).
Austerity. What do you understand by the word, @golfaddick ?
I agree that these people have suffered a fall in living standards. There are two reasons we can identify:
1. We bailed out the banks and lenders who caused the 2008 crisis, yet we failed to hold any of them to account, nor have we ensured that this can't happen again.
2. HMRC pursues plumbers and hairdressers for tax infringements, while "going out for dinner with Vodafone" and agreeing a "deal" which excuses them from seven billion pounds which HMRC had calculated that they owe. And HMRC continue to believe Google and Facebook fairytales about business "concluded in Ireland", when everyone who does serious business with them knows the truth and might be willing to spill the beans.
Those are the two major reasons why we have austerity. The Tories pretend it is just good housekeeping.
This article shows just how much we spend comparatively to other nations on health care as a proportion of GDP. Certainly not the picture most of the press portrays of how expensive the NHS is.
But this from the ONS paints a different picture by looking at the figures in a different way. And one in which the NHS spends a larger percentage of total healthcare spend than any other G7 countries on publicly-funded healthcare!
The ONS also says "the UK also had a higher share of healthcare expenditure by the public sector than most other member states of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which had an average public sector share for healthcare spending of 71.8%".
So most other countries have a higher percentage of health care funded privately than we do?
So, confused? I know I am.
The graph shows the share of total healthcare expenditure derived from the public sector. On that basis, it's no surpprise that the UK leads the chart: it's saying that 83.3% of the money spent on healthcare in the UK is spent by the public sector. By contrast, in the United States, the majority of healthcare services are paid for privately, ie by payments from patients and by health insurance payments.
Thanks v much for your input. But I'm afraid I'm still confused! The other data from The King's Fund tell a different story. They say we pay a lower percentage of GDP than most. (If I read it right.)
So either both can't both be right; or our GDP per capita is well out of kilter with everyone else's (which might be the case if separate commentary on UK productivity levels is to be believed); or they are both wrong. The King's Fund while a not-for-profit organisation still has an agenda, as it's stated aim is "working to improve health and care in England". So, for example saying the percentage spend in the EU had moved on to 10% of GDP by 2009, might not be because EU countries had spent more actual folding stuff, it might be because their GDP had faired less well than ours. (I don't know but that's a possibility if you factor in Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain).
Hopefully the ONS is not in a position where it could be accused of bias. BUT and it's a big but, according to reports like this pnhp.org/news/2016/january/government-funds-nearly-two-thirds-of-us-health-care-costs-american-journal-of-pub Most healthcare in the US is paid for by the State and indeed (presumably because of their higher health care costs) the US Govt. pays more in actual money per capita than ours does! Which puts that ONS figure for the US well out of kilter.
The Kings Fund data shows the proportion of each country's GDP that is made up of public and private sector healthcare. In the case of the UK it's 8.5%. So, in other words, if you add up all the money spent in the UK on healthcare, including public money spent by the Government (mostly NHS) and money spent on private health (a mix of individuals' payments for healthcare and health insurance "payouts" used for healthcare) it comes to 8.5% of the UK's total GDP. This percentage is more than the equivalent percentage for some countries (eg Finland and Ireland) and less than several others.
The ONS data shows that, if you take that total amount spent on healthcare, a bit more than two-thirds is public money (71.8%). For many other countries in the G7, that figure is much less, because much more of their healthcare spend has to be found from private sources (eg individuals and insurance).
The two sets of data don't conflict at all. In short, we spend less (as a proportion of GDP) on healthcare than many countries; and most of what we do spend comes out of public money (ie the Government uses Treasury money) as opposed to each of us having to pay for our own healthcare. In even shorter... we all chip in a bit so we all get healthcare, and by doing so it works out better value.
So logically we will be in line with other high spending countries by increasing the scope of private health insurance? Either we are evaluating the adequacy of funding the NHS or comparing total health care spend with other countries, they are separate issues.
If you bring in GDP spend comparisons with other countries you must also debate the role of private care, which is prevalent in all other countries against which we are comparing ourselves. It is heresy to even suggest that one of the reasons we are lagging behind MIGHT be because we do not make best use of private health services, something other countries manage quite happily without tearing themselves apart with ideological arguments on public v private involvement. The only thing which is sacrosanct as far as I am concerned is medical attention free at the point of delivery. That has got nothing to do with privatisation of services.
All doctors and consultants are on self employed contracts, so are part of the private care system, as well as providing contracted services to the NHS. Imagine what would happen if they were currently all employed like nurses are, by the NHS, and we suggested the privatisation of doctors to end up with the current system, so that they could earn more money by restricting the time given to the NHS and free up time for charging fees. What could be currently "privatised" that is more privatised than the current system.
Doctors in 1948 refused to join the NHS, and have always retained that position. It means the NHS is dependant on a monopolistic private sector service under the control of one of the most powerful unions in the UK, the BMA, to provide GP services and treat patients. If doctors can make a profit out of the NHS what's the difference if other services are provided by profit making enterprises?
Anyone who says you cannot get the same care if profit is the motive has never been treated privately. The danger is the incompetence of NHS procurement. I bet Capita could do operations really cheap, that would appeal to NHS managers, gives a bigger margin for their bonuses.
Spending in line is not logical as it does not take in to account value for money or efficiency. For instance Medicare is much more efficient than private insurance in the US. Makes a like for like really hard as even when you include private and public funds it isn't a direct comparison.
Separation of power is no bad thing, it has worked very well for the crown, parliament and the army. But you did mention a union, even if it is those really smart doctors, we should all be worried.
You could say it is down to poor a procurement process, but where are all these experts and how are they going to be paid for?
Austerity. What do you understand by the word, @golfaddick ?
I agree that these people have suffered a fall in living standards. There are two reasons we can identify:
1. We bailed out the banks and lenders who caused the 2008 crisis, yet we failed to hold any of them to account, nor have we ensured that this can't happen again.
2. HMRC pursues plumbers and hairdressers for tax infringements, while "going out for dinner with Vodafone" and agreeing a "deal" which excuses them from seven billion pounds which HMRC had calculated that they owe. And HMRC continue to believe Google and Facebook fairytales about business "concluded in Ireland", when everyone who does serious business with them knows the truth and might be willing to spill the beans.
Those are the two major reasons why we have austerity. The Tories pretend it is just good housekeeping.
Your comments, Golfie?
Bailed out the banks? That 'show' is far from over unfortunately.
Comments
There has been a disgusting rise in food bank use which is totally unacceptable.
I thought I'd made my position clear, but here in bold -hope this answers your question.
I just think 'nurses using foodbanks' is a great emotional image but it may be without foundation?
Better to be accurate, surely?
Edit - is that a massive iphone in the corner?
If the bloke sadly downsizes his Range Rover to a smaller unfamiliar car and has a serious accident, he might need to be rushed to Accident and Emergency.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
He seems like someone that would plan for the future as much as possible, so I'd guess he had private medical cover.
I was recent working for a company that pays monthly for a well known accounting software. The boss phoned their helpline and expecting a wait, put her call on speakerphone. 'We are very busy at the moment and your call will be answered in approximately 35 minutes.' The four of us in the office looked at each other absolutely gob-smacked! How can a major PLC think this constitutes customer service?
Do you see where I'm going with this?
He seems like someone that would plan for the future as much as possible, so I'd guess he had private medical cover.
I reckon the NHS represents a bit of a plan for the future.
Am I right in saying that private medical stuff often utilises NHS resources (and pay for it), or is the private medical world a comprehensive stand alone system?
The number of beds available in private hospitals for treating mental illness rose to 8647 in 2008, which represents an increase of 35% in just 5 years. The private sector provides 24% of all beds for mental health patients with the remainder in the NHS."
As for numbers of private hospitals, have a look at the font of all knowledge:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Private_hospitals_in_the_United_Kingdom
There is no private hospital in the country that could, for example, undertake a heart transplant - that would need to use NHS resources but the surgical team would charge as part of their private work they undertake.
If you bring in GDP spend comparisons with other countries you must also debate the role of private care, which is prevalent in all other countries against which we are comparing ourselves. It is heresy to even suggest that one of the reasons we are lagging behind MIGHT be because we do not make best use of private health services, something other countries manage quite happily without tearing themselves apart with ideological arguments on public v private involvement. The only thing which is sacrosanct as far as I am concerned is medical attention free at the point of delivery. That has got nothing to do with privatisation of services.
All doctors and consultants are on self employed contracts, so are part of the private care system, as well as providing contracted services to the NHS. Imagine what would happen if they were currently all employed like nurses are, by the NHS, and we suggested the privatisation of doctors to end up with the current system, so that they could earn more money by restricting the time given to the NHS and free up time for charging fees. What could be currently "privatised" that is more privatised than the current system.
Doctors in 1948 refused to join the NHS, and have always retained that position. It means the NHS is dependant on a monopolistic private sector service under the control of one of the most powerful unions in the UK, the BMA, to provide GP services and treat patients. If doctors can make a profit out of the NHS what's the difference if other services are provided by profit making enterprises?
Anyone who says you cannot get the same care if profit is the motive has never been treated privately. The danger is the incompetence of NHS procurement. I bet Capita could do operations really cheap, that would appeal to NHS managers, gives a bigger margin for their bonuses.
Most GP's are but hospital doctors are employed by the NHS on contracts just like everyone else who works for the NHS. Some consultants also have a private practice but not all.
I agree that these people have suffered a fall in living standards. There are two reasons we can identify:
1. We bailed out the banks and lenders who caused the 2008 crisis, yet we failed to hold any of them to account, nor have we ensured that this can't happen again.
2. HMRC pursues plumbers and hairdressers for tax infringements, while "going out for dinner with Vodafone" and agreeing a "deal" which excuses them from seven billion pounds which HMRC had calculated that they owe. And HMRC continue to believe Google and Facebook fairytales about business "concluded in Ireland", when everyone who does serious business with them knows the truth and might be willing to spill the beans.
Those are the two major reasons why we have austerity. The Tories pretend it is just good housekeeping.
Your comments, Golfie?
Separation of power is no bad thing, it has worked very well for the crown, parliament and the army. But you did mention a union, even if it is those really smart doctors, we should all be worried.
You could say it is down to poor a procurement process, but where are all these experts and how are they going to be paid for?