I think it is privatisation.
Not so. There is not the direct control; the contracts are secret for commercial reasons; the private contracts are not covered by FOI legislation; and you would find it difficult to take any action in the event that you had received sub-standard treatment.On what grounds? The NHS still pays for it, issues instructions, takes ultimate responsibility. It is similar with national screening services such as bowel cancer, breast cancer, retinal eye screening and so forth. They each have different service providers, under contract, but each has to follow NHS instructions and each is paid by the NHS.
I'm not sure the decision to underfund the health service was a hard decision. I believe it was a decision they wanted to make. The austerity narrative has been fixed in peoples' minds, so there is not more discontent with the state of things. My doctor says the NHS is in a terrible mess. Our local A&E has closed. I remember, before our hospital was built, one of my work colleagues had a heart attack and died in the ambulance on the 13 mile trip to the nearest A&E. That will happen again. The Government will underfund the NHS for as long as it can get away with it. We are the six largest economy in the world (the fifth before 23 June). Don't accept that there is no money. We should be spending at least the European average on healthcare.
What I have seen from the Conservatives this election is reality - that hard decisions will need to be made.
No. Lots of hospital closures and cut backs happened under St Thatcher. Labour restarted investment in the NHS services when they came to power in 1997. They used PFI to fund it.I fully agree with you on the NHS, in fact believe it or not the Hospital and A&E closures were actually started by the last Labour government
Whilst the headline tax rate may appear lower than 7 or 8 years ago, if you look back through the UK accounts, the amount of hard cash that came in to the public coffers as the rate was reduced increased. Higher headline tax rates actually reduce the amount of tax revenue we make. Now I've no doubt there's a nice break even somewhere, but raising them from where they are now will not be beneficial to the UK economy, where reducing them may be.or should corporation tax be reduced (again)?
Like cutting funding per head in real terms you mean?This is because promises are made to rope in the voters and are often (if not mostly) aimed at the category of voters that traditionally vote for you. Most of it is wishful thinking, fantasy, idealistic. When grim reality strikes, the promises are too difficult and too expensive to keep. What I have seen from the Conservatives this election is reality - that hard decisions will need to be made.
The narrative is important. It is ALWAYS the debt and not the assets the debt buys which are handed on to children and grandchildren. It is ALWAYS the tax burden and not schools hospitals and vital Public Services; like, for example, er, 20000 Police Officers and a 1000 firearms officers.Yes i agree they slowly build the case by cuts in funds and then present it as the burden and finally moved it to privatization.
Yes but PFI wasn't so clever.No. Lots of hospital closures and cut backs happened under St Thatcher. Labour restarted investment in the NHS services when they came to power in 1997. They used PFI to fund it.
I thought the proposal was to keep them were they are now and not to cut them further. I may be wrong.Whilst the headline tax rate may appear lower than 7 or 8 years ago, if you look back through the UK accounts, the amount of hard cash that came in to the public coffers as the rate was reduced increased. Higher headline tax rates actually reduce the amount of tax revenue we make. Now I've no doubt there's a nice break even somewhere, but raising them from where they are now will not be beneficial to the UK economy, where reducing them may be.
Levels of activity in the economy, and more importantly, where companies decide to repatriate their profits in order to best provide shareholder value. Where rates are lower, more cash comes on shore because it is just more efficient that way.I thought the proposal was to keep them were they are now and not to cut them further. I may be wrong.
Tax revenues in cash terms depend not just on the tax rate but also the level of activity in the economy. It is not the simple relationship you suggest.
I think you mean it's a fiddle. Competitive cuts lead to zeroLevels of activity in the economy, and more importantly, where companies decide to repatriate their profits in order to best provide shareholder value. Where rates are lower, more cash comes on shore because it is just more efficient that way.
Hordes of people shuffling around with paper files. I even offered to take my mothers down with us when we last went but oh no we had to wait for someone to carry it instead... paper files in 2017 really?
I think it's the League of Friends who sort out the files in our local hospital. Maybe paper files are better given the recent cyber attack. A lot of investment was wasted on NHS IT systems under Labour and Conservative Governments.Has anyone actually sat in a hospital and watched what goes on?
Hordes of people shuffling around with paper files. I even offered to take my mothers down with us when we last went but oh no we had to wait for someone to carry it instead... paper files in 2017 really?
My mother had some pre-cancerous skin lesions removed and we went back to get the dressings changed.
The nurse.. put on her disposable apron
Got about 8 items out of the drawer including a pair of vacuum packed scissors.
Put two dressings on my mother's leg.
By the time we left she had a carrier bag full of waste then she added her apron to that pile.
Seriously for 2 dressings? The amount of waste in manpower and materials in the NHS is quite mind boggling. Something needs to change. It is completely unsustainable both in terms of the environment (all that plastic packaging waste) and financially.
How much extra tax would you all want to pay so someone else can wander around hospital corridors delivering files?
It is our money that is being wasted here not the NHS's.
Thank God. Sorry, forgot I'm an Atheist. Thank goodness.Well in 48 hours it will all be over!!
No. Lots of hospital closures and cut backs happened under St Thatcher. Labour restarted investment in the NHS services when they came to power in 1997. They used PFI to fund it.
My new local hospital will also have fewer beds when it opens. As well as being more difficult to get to.I'm not going to argue this point because we can argue about the NHS until the cows come home and still disagree. What I will tell you is that where I live the hospitals have ALL been closed under a Labour government, and if they were serious about making sure the NHS was run properly they would have reversed the Tory policy on trusts and gone back to some form of health authority control.
Since PFI in this area yes they built a new hospital and closed 4, now some have to travel 12 miles to hospital, and some 15 miles depending on which treatment you need. Oh and the actual bed numbers now compared to before all these PFI changed are 26% less. Yes we have one new swanky hospital but its not big enough and they were told this before they built the flaming thing. My family have worked in local healthcare here since the mid 70's and we can all tell you that both Tory and labour have shat on us where health is concerned. However out of the two there is no way would I trust a Tory government with the NHS.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?