That's why I specifically said "broken"; if they were not broken, the NHS would still be using them.
That is classed as "anecdote", and is therefore inadmissible in any discussion about wastage and bureaucracy
That's why I specifically said "broken"; if they were not broken, the NHS would still be using them.
That is classed as "anecdote", and is therefore inadmissible in any discussion about wastage and bureaucracy
Sponsored Links
Not when the rulers dodge taxes, or absent-mindedly "overlook" £5 million they should pay. Or pretend not to be living in the UK so not participating in UK tax.
The tax laws have been written to favour the rich and to hammer ordinary working people.
When you get a £30million pound back-hander paid into your network of offshore accounts, do you pay tax on it?
Any large organisation is bureaucratic, including the monolithic us health care companies. The teams of lawyers they employ to deal with claims, and the compensation they pay is precisely why their “efficient “ private sector costs more than our nhs. Read when I die by Phillip Gould and you will realise the scary medical consequences of commoditising health care
Blup
Blup
This is just a strawman argument - pick the worst possible alternative, rubbish it then use this as justification for staying as we are.
Every other country in the world has a healthcare system, most of which you don't hear about as they just work, efficiently, and don't drain the country of a massive chunk of its GDP.
Lots of European countries look after their people fairly and without bankrupting themselves. There are huge lessons we could learn if only we could get past the idiotic group mental block we appear to have, where the NHS is somehow holy and nobody is allowed to say it's a complete mess.
Sponsored Links
Bit harsh on Transam, given that he was voting (for most of the relevant period) against Thatcher (someone who, IIRC, you have previously cited as a "witch", and thought had a "special place in Hell reserved for her").
Unless you measure "success" as voting for the winner, even against your better judgment.
From 2021/22, the NHS burnt through £157.9 BILLION. An amount of money I can't even imagine.No, it's you who's talking rubbish. Some actual figures, rather than Labour party guff...
The NHS budget and how it has changed
What is the NHS budget and how is it funded? Find out in our nutshell.www.kingsfund.org.uk
View attachment 293316
The dark blue bars are actual spending, light blue is planned spending, basically a wish. I think we all know that it's extremely unlikely that 2022/23's actual spending will be less than the previous year, as they're currently having some kind of crisis drama, and haven't made any efficiency improvements.
So actual recorded spending is higher than it's ever been in the entire history of the NHS, therefore the Labour party knowingly tell outright lies to the public, which some halfwits blindly believe.
Families and households in the UK - Office for National Statistics
Trends in living arrangements including families (with and without dependent children), people living alone and people in shared accommodation, broken down by size and type of household.
www.ons.gov.uk
There were an estimated 28.1 million households in the UK in 2021
The cost of the NHS per household is £157.9 BILLION / 28.1 MILLION = £5,619.
Does anyone seriously think this is good value?
The problem is that the sensible consental approach to health care in Europe doesn’t exist here. If/ when we privatise it will go to to an asset stripping cost cutting company with absolutely no checks and balances in the contract to ensure support for the poor or needy in, or to maintain services close to the point of need. Just look at the privatisation of the utilities for examples of the difference between promise and practice
Blup
The labour party would be against any meaningful reform of its NHS due to its paymasters (the unions) making a vast amount of money from the union subscriptions received from the squadrons of staff who are paid vast amounts of money to do very little.
The labour party's effective ownership by the unions is the reason why it could never run public services efficiently, and why it continually tells lies about the NHS funding.
The labour party is just a subsidiary of the unions, which are just parasitic businesses that thrive on a bloated public sector.
The labour party's effective ownership by the unions is the reason why it could never run public services efficiently, and why it continually tells lies about the NHS funding.
The labour party is just a subsidiary of the unions, which are just parasitic businesses that thrive on a bloated public sector.
A curiously short period shown in the Kingsfund graphic. Which ignores the huge extra costs of trying to cope with our increasingly old, and costly, population. The jump in spending in 2020 and 2021 was on Covid-19-specific activities outside of what the NHS usually does – including the UK’s very expensive Test and Trace programme.
A fuller graph is linked here:
www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk
"But while the NHS needs more each year merely to stand still in the face of rising prices, it also needs more simply to cope with changes in the population. Changes in the size of the English population – which has grown by 10.6 million since 1979 – mean that spending per person has not grown as fast as the total spend.
And it’s not only the population head count that has changed. So too has its demographic structure. In particular, the number of older people has grown, both in absolute terms and also as a proportion of the total population.
This has been most noticeable in the growing numbers of people aged 85 and over, who now make up around twice the proportion of the population compared to just 30 years ago. Over the same period, the proportion of the population aged 20 to 24 has shrunk by more than a fifth.
These changes make a significant difference to the demands put on the health care system, as someone in their mid-to-late eighties on average consumes around 10 times as much hospital-based care as someone in their early twenties.
Using estimates of the costs of hospital-based care for different age groups, our analysis shows that, on average, health care spending per person in England grew by around 2.6% a year in real terms between 1979/80 and 2020/21, after these changes in the demographic structure are taken into account. This excludes spending in 2020/21 ringfenced for Covid-19.
That 2.6% represents the available resources for the NHS over and above that which would be needed to keep up with inflation, population growth and the increasing health needs of an ageing demographic. It therefore gives an indication of what has been available to the NHS to do more than stand still: to improve the quality of care; adopt new treatments, drugs and technologies; reduce risk; and meet rising patient and public expectations.
As can be seen from the chart, this average increase has not been spread evenly. The last 40 years can be characterised as a period of increases averaging 2.1% in the 17 years prior to 1997, followed by 13 years of much higher growth, averaging 5.7% a year between 1997/98 and 2009/10.
But in the decade leading up to the pandemic, real-terms spending increases per head averaged just 0.4% a year and included four years in which spending per head actually fell. This has been a period of stagnation in terms of the resources available to the NHS to fund improvements in health care quality, or to expand its horizons of what it is possible to do for patients."
www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk
A fuller graph is linked here:
The past, present and future of government spending on the NHS
With the Chancellor making further updates to government spending plans and the health service facing crisis on several fronts, there is uncertainty over what the future will hold for health care finances amid such instability. How much is this government really spending on the NHS per person...
www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk
"But while the NHS needs more each year merely to stand still in the face of rising prices, it also needs more simply to cope with changes in the population. Changes in the size of the English population – which has grown by 10.6 million since 1979 – mean that spending per person has not grown as fast as the total spend.
And it’s not only the population head count that has changed. So too has its demographic structure. In particular, the number of older people has grown, both in absolute terms and also as a proportion of the total population.
This has been most noticeable in the growing numbers of people aged 85 and over, who now make up around twice the proportion of the population compared to just 30 years ago. Over the same period, the proportion of the population aged 20 to 24 has shrunk by more than a fifth.
These changes make a significant difference to the demands put on the health care system, as someone in their mid-to-late eighties on average consumes around 10 times as much hospital-based care as someone in their early twenties.
Using estimates of the costs of hospital-based care for different age groups, our analysis shows that, on average, health care spending per person in England grew by around 2.6% a year in real terms between 1979/80 and 2020/21, after these changes in the demographic structure are taken into account. This excludes spending in 2020/21 ringfenced for Covid-19.
That 2.6% represents the available resources for the NHS over and above that which would be needed to keep up with inflation, population growth and the increasing health needs of an ageing demographic. It therefore gives an indication of what has been available to the NHS to do more than stand still: to improve the quality of care; adopt new treatments, drugs and technologies; reduce risk; and meet rising patient and public expectations.
As can be seen from the chart, this average increase has not been spread evenly. The last 40 years can be characterised as a period of increases averaging 2.1% in the 17 years prior to 1997, followed by 13 years of much higher growth, averaging 5.7% a year between 1997/98 and 2009/10.
But in the decade leading up to the pandemic, real-terms spending increases per head averaged just 0.4% a year and included four years in which spending per head actually fell. This has been a period of stagnation in terms of the resources available to the NHS to fund improvements in health care quality, or to expand its horizons of what it is possible to do for patients."
The past, present and future of government spending on the NHS
With the Chancellor making further updates to government spending plans and the health service facing crisis on several fronts, there is uncertainty over what the future will hold for health care finances amid such instability. How much is this government really spending on the NHS per person...
www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 12,521
- Reaction score
- 983
- Country
Not a full picture as I'm sure you know
Just me having a dig at Brexit really.
A curiously short period shown in the Kingsfund graphic. Which ignores the huge extra costs of trying to cope with our increasingly old, and costly, population.
The past, present and future of government spending on the NHS
With the Chancellor making further updates to government spending plans and the health service facing crisis on several fronts, there is uncertainty over what the future will hold for health care finances amid such instability. How much is this government really spending on the NHS per person...
"But while the NHS needs more each year merely to stand still in the face of rising prices, it also needs more simply to cope with changes in the population. Changes in the size of the English population – which has grown by 10.6 million since 1979 – mean that spending per person has not grown as fast as the total spend.
And it’s not only the population head count that has changed. So too has its demographic structure. In particular, the number of older people has grown, both in absolute terms and also as a proportion of the total population.
This has been most noticeable in the growing numbers of people aged 85 and over, who now make up around twice the proportion of the population compared to just 30 years ago. Over the same period, the proportion of the population aged 20 to 24 has shrunk by more than a fifth.
These changes make a significant difference to the demands put on the health care system, as someone in their mid-to-late eighties on average consumes around 10 times as much hospital-based care as someone in their early twenties.
Using estimates of the costs of hospital-based care for different age groups, our analysis shows that, on average, health care spending per person in England grew by around 2.6% a year in real terms between 1979/80 and 2020/21, after these changes in the demographic structure are taken into account. This excludes spending in 2020/21 ringfenced for Covid-19.
That 2.6% represents the available resources for the NHS over and above that which would be needed to keep up with inflation, population growth and the increasing health needs of an ageing demographic. It therefore gives an indication of what has been available to the NHS to do more than stand still: to improve the quality of care; adopt new treatments, drugs and technologies; reduce risk; and meet rising patient and public expectations.
As can be seen from the chart, this average increase has not been spread evenly. The last 40 years can be characterised as a period of increases averaging 2.1% in the 17 years prior to 1997, followed by 13 years of much higher growth, averaging 5.7% a year between 1997/98 and 2009/10.
But in the decade leading up to the pandemic, real-terms spending increases per head averaged just 0.4% a year and included four years in which spending per head actually fell. This has been a period of stagnation in terms of the resources available to the NHS to fund improvements in health care quality, or to expand its horizons of what it is possible to do for patients."
The past, present and future of government spending on the NHS
With the Chancellor making further updates to government spending plans and the health service facing crisis on several fronts, there is uncertainty over what the future will hold for health care finances amid such instability. How much is this government really spending on the NHS per person...
I'm waiting for you to say 'what happened to the extra 350 million a week' the NHS would receive after brexit?, go on, say it, make my day punk.
Blame the Secretary of State for Health. Certainly not the workers.
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,776
- Reaction score
- 702
- Country
Rubbish. Look it up.
Sponsored Links
