The Greens
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
jamiemartin721  Reading 09 Dec 14 3.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stuk at 08 Dec 2014 5.20pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Dec 2014 5.01pm
Quote matt_himself at 08 Dec 2014 4.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Dec 2014 4.46pm
I don't think people are against the idea of paying tax, rather they're more against the way in which its spent (or wasted) on things like vanity projects and political egotism.
I am not for the dismantling of public services but I think a dosage of private sector keeping costs down management will be of benefit to all concerned. How many paracetamol in the packet, what size and what strength? Is that the cost of the drugs, or the cost of dispensing the drug to patients in A+E or hospitals (when you figure in other costs). The private sector isn't as efficient as people tend to think either, and in many cases are a reason why government costs can be much higher. Government services will always cost more than the private counter parts, because the public will insist on higher standards in regards to operations and responsibility, which results in greater expenditure.
Not to mention being far more efficient, at anything. Personal experience. I've worked in contracts to government and private sector, private sector work has a lot less in the way of requirements, compared to government sector work. For example, there when providing IT into government sectors you have all manner of health and safety requirements that you just don't see in the private sector (such as RSI systems, Special Needs Software, higher data protection requirements, security protocols are higher, environmental systems requirements, more resilient DR and fallback plans, restricted infrastructure requirements are higher etc). You'll need to security clear staff to just be on site, which you almost never will for private sector contracts. Chances are you'll have restricted hardware limitations as well. Even requirements in regards to development, testing and QA is much higher when you're working with governments, as is auditing requirements. Defense is even more extreme in its standards and requirements. It all has to be recouped somehow, and invariably it costs more. It costs about 750-1000 per end user to provide a workstation to a government worker. Its about 500-750 in private sector.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 Stuk Top half 09 Dec 14 3.43pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote Seth at 09 Dec 2014 3.00pm
Quote Stuk at 09 Dec 2014 1.36pm
Quote Seth at 09 Dec 2014 12.39am
Quote Stuk at 08 Dec 2014 8.24pm
Quote Seth at 08 Dec 2014 5.53pm
Quote Stuk at 08 Dec 2014 5.20pm
Firstly the public, for the most part, wouldn't have a clue about quality or standards.
I expect better of you Stuk, I really do.
What we expect is the best that can be done within the respective budgets and don't "insist" on anything. It bloody well is. Our "own knowledge" will contain experiences from many different contacts with health and other services here and in other countries over a lifetime. I reckon most people will be able to tell if they're getting high standards or not. I think I can and I think most other people can too. I've used private medical care on occasion and yes there's a lot more money in it but it's not always the best and sometimes the NHS has to mend the mistakes they make. One example of how privatised and deregulated services harm the NHS: [Link] I think we should "insist" on the best medical care our collective money can buy and not accept the privatisation of our NHS, which has been shown to the the most efficient health service in the world [Link] The NHS is publically funded, is the best in the world, and needs to stay that way, for the health of all of us. Don't be so melodramatic. The volume of public services is so vast that none of us would have a clue about 90% of it. Do you know the highest quality tarmac, trains, CAT scanners, lamp posts etc? No, you don't. He said the highest standards, not just high standards. No idea why you're going into a rant about the NHS, which I didn't even mention, but to say it is the best in the world, over and above any other country and/or every private facility is nonsense. Patriotic, but nonsense. This all came from your exchange with jamie which was about the cost to the NHS of a box of paracetamol. So we're talking about the NHS, not tarmac, lampposts or anything else. He actually said "higher standards" not the "highest standards". I've never heard of the European Health Consumer Index, but the report Johnny linked to conflicts with the Commonwealth Fund, whose findings I posted a link to a report about, who said the NHS was the most efficient in the world.
I misread higher for highest but it's still indicating we insist on more than high standards. Is most efficient necessarily the best?
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
Seth  On a pale blue dot 09 Dec 14 3.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stuk at 09 Dec 2014 3.43pm
I replied to the cost of government services, not to anything about the NHS specifically. Which is why I said none of us would have a clue about most of it as the range is enormous. I misread higher for highest but it's still indicating we insist on more than high standards. Is most efficient necessarily the best?
Higher, highest, high, whatever. I think we know when we're getting good quality care or not. The report I linked to said this: "The United Kingdom ranks first overall, scoring highest on quality, access and efficiency" The Telegraph says: "In the Commonwealth Fund study, the UK came first out of the 11 countries in eight of the 11 measures of care the authors looked at. It came top on measures including providing effective care, safe care, co-ordinated care and patient-centred care. The fund also rated the NHS as the best for giving access to care and for efficient use of resources. "Their findings amount to a huge endorsement of the health service, especially as it spends the second-lowest amount on healthcare among the 11 – just £2,008 per head, less than half the £5,017 in the US. Only New Zealand, with £1,876, spent less. "Despite investing the most money in health, the US refuses care to many patients without health insurance and is also the worst at saving the lives of people who fall ill, it found." See for yourself: [Link]
"You can feel the stadium jumping. The stadium is actually physically moving up and down" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 09 Dec 14 4.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Seth at 09 Dec 2014 3.52pm
Quote Stuk at 09 Dec 2014 3.43pm
I replied to the cost of government services, not to anything about the NHS specifically. Which is why I said none of us would have a clue about most of it as the range is enormous. I misread higher for highest but it's still indicating we insist on more than high standards. Is most efficient necessarily the best?
Higher, highest, high, whatever. I think we know when we're getting good quality care or not. The report I linked to said this: "The United Kingdom ranks first overall, scoring highest on quality, access and efficiency" The Telegraph says: "In the Commonwealth Fund study, the UK came first out of the 11 countries in eight of the 11 measures of care the authors looked at. It came top on measures including providing effective care, safe care, co-ordinated care and patient-centred care. The fund also rated the NHS as the best for giving access to care and for efficient use of resources. "Their findings amount to a huge endorsement of the health service, especially as it spends the second-lowest amount on healthcare among the 11 – just £2,008 per head, less than half the £5,017 in the US. Only New Zealand, with £1,876, spent less. "Despite investing the most money in health, the US refuses care to many patients without health insurance and is also the worst at saving the lives of people who fall ill, it found." See for yourself: [Link] We were. 11 measures and 11 countries isn't exactly a large pool of data. It obviously isn't comparing NHS to private within this country either. No one's bashing it, but I still think there are probably better health services out there. Probably costing astronomical sums I'll grant you.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Superfly The sun always shines in Catford 09 Dec 14 4.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
The NHS, im my very very recent experience, is in a shocking state & getting worse. I phoned to see my GP yesterday & was told they no longer take same day appointments. There is a same day walk in clinic from 2pm but they'll only see the first 18 people. I arrived at 1pm and the queue was out the door. I called again this morning to book a future appointment - the earliest they can book me in is the 24th December. My group practice has 9 GP's and I'm willing to see any of them. I'm going to have to join my work private health care. An action I despise as I don't see why I should when we have the NHS - but a 15 day wait for a doctors appointment is unacceptable.
Lend me a Tenor 31 May to 3 June 2017 John McIntosh Arts Centre with Superfly in the chorus |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 09 Dec 14 4.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 09 Dec 2014 3.27pm
Quote Stuk at 08 Dec 2014 5.20pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Dec 2014 5.01pm
Quote matt_himself at 08 Dec 2014 4.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Dec 2014 4.46pm
I don't think people are against the idea of paying tax, rather they're more against the way in which its spent (or wasted) on things like vanity projects and political egotism.
I am not for the dismantling of public services but I think a dosage of private sector keeping costs down management will be of benefit to all concerned. How many paracetamol in the packet, what size and what strength? Is that the cost of the drugs, or the cost of dispensing the drug to patients in A+E or hospitals (when you figure in other costs). The private sector isn't as efficient as people tend to think either, and in many cases are a reason why government costs can be much higher. Government services will always cost more than the private counter parts, because the public will insist on higher standards in regards to operations and responsibility, which results in greater expenditure.
Not to mention being far more efficient, at anything. Personal experience. I've worked in contracts to government and private sector, private sector work has a lot less in the way of requirements, compared to government sector work. For example, there when providing IT into government sectors you have all manner of health and safety requirements that you just don't see in the private sector (such as RSI systems, Special Needs Software, higher data protection requirements, security protocols are higher, environmental systems requirements, more resilient DR and fallback plans, restricted infrastructure requirements are higher etc). You'll need to security clear staff to just be on site, which you almost never will for private sector contracts. Chances are you'll have restricted hardware limitations as well. Even requirements in regards to development, testing and QA is much higher when you're working with governments, as is auditing requirements. Defense is even more extreme in its standards and requirements. It all has to be recouped somehow, and invariably it costs more. It costs about 750-1000 per end user to provide a workstation to a government worker. Its about 500-750 in private sector.
As I said it's the chain of pointless procedures and box ticking that means you pay more, for lower rather than higher standards. Not to mention the additional costs of someone else, ordering it, unwrapping it, setting it up etc.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Johnny Eagles  berlin 09 Dec 14 4.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Seth at 09 Dec 2014 3.26pm
Quote Johnny Eagles at 09 Dec 2014 3.12pm
Most efficient using what criteria? Do you mind posting it again or tell me exactly where I can find it? The NHS does lots of good stuff but I find the efficiency claim very surprising, given how centralised it is. The European Health Consumer Index is a regularly produced report by one of the leading providers of information about international healthcare. I used to work in healthcare marketing by the way. Before you think I'm sad enough to spend my free time reading these sorts of reports.
I'm no expert and you obviously have a professional interest in this subject, but I do find it irritating when the NHS is attacked from the right, especially when the people doing the attacking have a vested interest in privatising our system because they want to make a profit from it. I'm not tarring you with that brush by the way and wonder what you make of the Commonwealth Fund report, if you can be sad enough to read another one Edited by Seth (09 Dec 2014 3.27pm) It's not as transparent in terms of how it generated the scores. Or what data it used. Which makes it hard to judge. It seems that the UK's high score for "efficiency" stems from the fact that Britain spends less per capita than other countries. Which it does, certainly compared to the US. Not sure if that automatically means it's the "best" system though. Some of the categories seem a bit woolly. Eg, 'Equity'. What does that mean? And Britain comes first on "patient-centred care". Which sounds good, but what does it mean and how do they measure it? I find it remarkable that the UK comes first on virtually everything while countries which perform a lot better in other studies (Germany, Netherlands, Norway) all do comparatively so poorly. Is the NHS really that wonderful!? The cynic in me makes me wonder if the people behind this study were keen on using it to bash the American healthcare system, which is a bit of a political hot potato over there. Glad to hear I'm not being tarred with any brushes. It's understandable that people are wary of privatisation. But the NHS is completely intertwined with the private sector anyway. And the US system is hardly a pure free market. Medicare and Medicaid are huge state-funded programmes. It's not as simple as reducing "privatisation bad, nationalisation good."
...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Seth On a pale blue dot 09 Dec 14 4.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stuk at 09 Dec 2014 4.12pm
Quote Seth at 09 Dec 2014 3.52pm
Quote Stuk at 09 Dec 2014 3.43pm
I replied to the cost of government services, not to anything about the NHS specifically. Which is why I said none of us would have a clue about most of it as the range is enormous. I misread higher for highest but it's still indicating we insist on more than high standards. Is most efficient necessarily the best?
Higher, highest, high, whatever. I think we know when we're getting good quality care or not. The report I linked to said this: "The United Kingdom ranks first overall, scoring highest on quality, access and efficiency" The Telegraph says: "In the Commonwealth Fund study, the UK came first out of the 11 countries in eight of the 11 measures of care the authors looked at. It came top on measures including providing effective care, safe care, co-ordinated care and patient-centred care. The fund also rated the NHS as the best for giving access to care and for efficient use of resources. "Their findings amount to a huge endorsement of the health service, especially as it spends the second-lowest amount on healthcare among the 11 – just £2,008 per head, less than half the £5,017 in the US. Only New Zealand, with £1,876, spent less. "Despite investing the most money in health, the US refuses care to many patients without health insurance and is also the worst at saving the lives of people who fall ill, it found." See for yourself: [Link] We were. 11 measures and 11 countries isn't exactly a large pool of data. It obviously isn't comparing NHS to private within this country either. No one's bashing it, but I still think there are probably better health services out there. Probably costing astronomical sums I'll grant you.
"You can feel the stadium jumping. The stadium is actually physically moving up and down" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 09 Dec 14 4.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Johnny Eagles at 09 Dec 2014 4.19pm
Quote Seth at 09 Dec 2014 3.26pm
Quote Johnny Eagles at 09 Dec 2014 3.12pm
Most efficient using what criteria? Do you mind posting it again or tell me exactly where I can find it? The NHS does lots of good stuff but I find the efficiency claim very surprising, given how centralised it is. The European Health Consumer Index is a regularly produced report by one of the leading providers of information about international healthcare. I used to work in healthcare marketing by the way. Before you think I'm sad enough to spend my free time reading these sorts of reports.
I'm no expert and you obviously have a professional interest in this subject, but I do find it irritating when the NHS is attacked from the right, especially when the people doing the attacking have a vested interest in privatising our system because they want to make a profit from it. I'm not tarring you with that brush by the way and wonder what you make of the Commonwealth Fund report, if you can be sad enough to read another one Edited by Seth (09 Dec 2014 3.27pm) It's not as transparent in terms of how it generated the scores. Or what data it used. Which makes it hard to judge. It seems that the UK's high score for "efficiency" stems from the fact that Britain spends less per capita than other countries. Which it does, certainly compared to the US. Not sure if that automatically means it's the "best" system though. Some of the categories seem a bit woolly. Eg, 'Equity'. What does that mean? And Britain comes first on "patient-centred care". Which sounds good, but what does it mean and how do they measure it? I find it remarkable that the UK comes first on virtually everything while countries which perform a lot better in other studies (Germany, Netherlands, Norway) all do comparatively so poorly. Is the NHS really that wonderful!? The cynic in me makes me wonder if the people behind this study were keen on using it to bash the American healthcare system, which is a bit of a political hot potato over there. Glad to hear I'm not being tarred with any brushes. It's understandable that people are wary of privatisation. But the NHS is completely intertwined with the private sector anyway. And the US system is hardly a pure free market. Medicare and Medicaid are huge state-funded programmes. It's not as simple as reducing "privatisation bad, nationalisation good." It crossed my mind while reading it too.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Seth On a pale blue dot 09 Dec 14 4.23pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Superfly at 09 Dec 2014 4.15pm
The NHS, im my very very recent experience, is in a shocking state & getting worse. I phoned to see my GP yesterday & was told they no longer take same day appointments. There is a same day walk in clinic from 2pm but they'll only see the first 18 people. I arrived at 1pm and the queue was out the door. I called again this morning to book a future appointment - the earliest they can book me in is the 24th December. My group practice has 9 GP's and I'm willing to see any of them. I'm going to have to join my work private health care. An action I despise as I don't see why I should when we have the NHS - but a 15 day wait for a doctors appointment is unacceptable.
The GP system in England is facing a "catastrophe" because of cuts in funding, doctors' leaders are warning. Analysis by the Royal College of GPs suggests that over the past three years, investment in general practice has fallen by £400m in real terms. That is equivalent to a 7% cut in spending per patient, it says.
"You can feel the stadium jumping. The stadium is actually physically moving up and down" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Seth On a pale blue dot 09 Dec 14 4.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stuk at 09 Dec 2014 4.21pm
Quote Johnny Eagles at 09 Dec 2014 4.19pm
The cynic in me makes me wonder if the people behind this study were keen on using it to bash the American healthcare system, which is a bit of a political hot potato over there. It crossed my mind while reading it too.
"You can feel the stadium jumping. The stadium is actually physically moving up and down" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Seth On a pale blue dot 09 Dec 14 4.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Johnny Eagles at 09 Dec 2014 4.19pm
Quote Seth at 09 Dec 2014 3.26pm
Quote Johnny Eagles at 09 Dec 2014 3.12pm
Most efficient using what criteria? Do you mind posting it again or tell me exactly where I can find it? The NHS does lots of good stuff but I find the efficiency claim very surprising, given how centralised it is. The European Health Consumer Index is a regularly produced report by one of the leading providers of information about international healthcare. I used to work in healthcare marketing by the way. Before you think I'm sad enough to spend my free time reading these sorts of reports.
I'm no expert and you obviously have a professional interest in this subject, but I do find it irritating when the NHS is attacked from the right, especially when the people doing the attacking have a vested interest in privatising our system because they want to make a profit from it. I'm not tarring you with that brush by the way and wonder what you make of the Commonwealth Fund report, if you can be sad enough to read another one Edited by Seth (09 Dec 2014 3.27pm) It's not as transparent in terms of how it generated the scores. Or what data it used. Which makes it hard to judge. It seems that the UK's high score for "efficiency" stems from the fact that Britain spends less per capita than other countries. Which it does, certainly compared to the US. Not sure if that automatically means it's the "best" system though. Some of the categories seem a bit woolly. Eg, 'Equity'. What does that mean? And Britain comes first on "patient-centred care". Which sounds good, but what does it mean and how do they measure it? I find it remarkable that the UK comes first on virtually everything while countries which perform a lot better in other studies (Germany, Netherlands, Norway) all do comparatively so poorly. Is the NHS really that wonderful!? The cynic in me makes me wonder if the people behind this study were keen on using it to bash the American healthcare system, which is a bit of a political hot potato over there. Glad to hear I'm not being tarred with any brushes. It's understandable that people are wary of privatisation. But the NHS is completely intertwined with the private sector anyway. And the US system is hardly a pure free market. Medicare and Medicaid are huge state-funded programmes. It's not as simple as reducing "privatisation bad, nationalisation good." I can't answer all your points but am satisfied that the NHS represents very good value for money, especially compared with other country's health systems. No service will be perfect but, with proper funding, we can be proud of what we have in the NHS.
"You can feel the stadium jumping. The stadium is actually physically moving up and down" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.