Cyclone   10 #85 Posted August 9, 2016 Not in the slightest. This measuring of public spending as a percentage of GDP is a massive con implemented by the left in only the last few years. Jeez, you're so committed to them doing right by the NHS that you will literally ignore any information to the contrary. Do you know any Doctors or Nurses or indeed any other NHS staff? I'm guessing you don't, because they would all have told you that the conservatives are destroying the NHS. We've always measured public spending in "real terms" i.e. corrected for inflation, not as a percentage of GDP. I don't know where this idea came from that it was legitimate to start using percentage of GDP terms, but it's a lie.  What if GDP goes down. If we had a big recession like 2008 and GDP dropped by a few %, lets say 5%, but NHS funding did not go down, then NHS funding would rise as a percentage of GDP by several %. Would that make the NHS better? Would it hell. Using percentages of GDP to measure public spending is a lie. It makes successful governments who boost GDP look like Scrooge and bad governments who cause recessions look like Santa. It's a con. tax income depends on GDP, so measuring how services are funded as a % of GDP (as a corollary to government revenue) is entirely legitimate.  Oh and take a look at the 2010 Labour manifesto. They planned to spend far less on the NHS than any of the other mainstream parties. Oops! The 2015 Labour manifesto makes no specific promises on NHS funding at all. Although I suppose if they wiped 20% off GDP and only cut NHS funding by 10% you'd be happy. Perhaps that was the plan. What's your point. They didn't get into power, they aren't the ones who are destroying the NHS.  The junior doctors are striking because they want more money and better terms and conditions. Doesn't everybody. That's not an indication of poor NHS funding. Same goes for trainee nurses. Not in the slightest true. With regards to nurses, pretty much an out and out lie.  That all being the case, you have done nothing to erode my original point. If anything you have reinforced it. Your point is based on nothing except wishful thinking.  I don't have a goal other than answering the question posed. The conservatives are bad for the country, they are doing the opposite of "fixing" it, they are a corrosive, divisive force who are out only to enrich themselves and their peers.  NHS funding is not keeping up with the increase in population and the increase in age and thus the increase of usage of the NHS. In £/head it is falling. Doctors are not striking for more money, they had a contract, they didn't go on strike for a new one, the Conservatives tried to impose a new contract which endangered patients, that's what created the strike. And student nurses aren't striking at all, they have had bursaries removed, so soon there won't be any student nurses. There is already a staffing crisis in the NHS, the Conservatives are doing their best to make it worse. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jim Graham   10 #86 Posted August 9, 2016 It amazes me that no matter how the conservatives attack the NHS some people will continue to believe that they are trying to help it.  LARGEST EVER SUSTAINED REDUCTION IN NHS FUNDING AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP.  Labour poured billions into the NHS and would have undoubtedly satisfied your GDP criteria. yet the result of all that cash was Mid Staffs, the Keogh Report, Liverpool Pathway and the likes of Shipman. Tens of thousands of British citizens were, effectively, killed by uncaring NHS staff under no political scrutiny whatsoever.  The Tories may have turned down the funding tap, but they have made the NHS much safer. Personally, I prefer to wait a bit longer and know I'll survive a trip to the NHS, than be seen straight away and have to take my chances. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #87 Posted August 9, 2016 (edited) Please explain what the conservatives have done that would stop another Harold Shipman?  As for the LCP  The Liverpool Care Pathway was developed by Royal Liverpool University Hospital and Liverpool's Marie Curie Hospice in the late 1990s for the care of terminally ill cancer patients. The LCP was then extended to include all patients deemed dying. While initial reception was positive, it was heavily criticised in the media in 2009 and 2012. In July 2013, the Department of Health released a statement which stated the use of the LCP should be "phased out over the next 6-12 months and replaced with an individual approach to end of life care for each patient".[2] However, The Telegraph reported that the program was just rebranded and that its supposed replacement would "perpetuate many of its worst practices, allowing patients to suffer days of dehydration, or to be sedated, leaving them unable to even ask for food or drink."[3]  Fixed?  LCP created whilst the conservatives were in power, several government changes later and only after media pressure, gets rebranded.  And the Keogh report, have you read it?  Nurse staffing levels and skill mix will appropriately reflect the caseload and the severity of illness of the patients they are caring for and be transparently reported by trust boards. Based on The review teams found inadequate numbers of nursing staff in a number of ward areas, particularly out of hours - at night and at the weekend. This was compounded by an over-reliance on unregistered support staff and temporary staff. Oh dear, ending student nurse bursaries isn't going to help achieve that is it... Nor discouraging people from becoming doctors and causing many existing ones to go abroad. Edited August 9, 2016 by Cyclone Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
unbeliever   10 #88 Posted August 9, 2016 Jeez, you're so committed to them doing right by the NHS that you will literally ignore any information to the contrary. Do you know any Doctors or Nurses or indeed any other NHS staff? I'm guessing you don't, because they would all have told you that the conservatives are destroying the NHS. tax income depends on GDP, so measuring how services are funded as a % of GDP (as a corollary to government revenue) is entirely legitimate. What's your point. They didn't get into power, they aren't the ones who are destroying the NHS. Not in the slightest true. With regards to nurses, pretty much an out and out lie. Your point is based on nothing except wishful thinking.  I don't have a goal other than answering the question posed. The conservatives are bad for the country, they are doing the opposite of "fixing" it, they are a corrosive, divisive force who are out only to enrich themselves and their peers.  NHS funding is not keeping up with the increase in population and the increase in age and thus the increase of usage of the NHS. In £/head it is falling. Doctors are not striking for more money, they had a contract, they didn't go on strike for a new one, the Conservatives tried to impose a new contract which endangered patients, that's what created the strike. And student nurses aren't striking at all, they have had bursaries removed, so soon there won't be any student nurses. There is already a staffing crisis in the NHS, the Conservatives are doing their best to make it worse.   I find your defence of the usage of percentage of GDP to be ridiculous. Percentage of GDP may vaguely guide you as to what can be afforded, but it can tell you nothing about whether real spending is going up or down. Since most of the rest of your post derives from that, I see no reason to say any more.  The doctors are striking over pay and conditions and considering that I have a PhD in physics and many nurses are paid more than me, I don't see why they should get free university when nobody else does.  Labour, who I voted for before I realise how fouled up they are, wrecked both the public sector and the wider economy. Your attempts to blame these problems on the repairmen are futile.  Now is you want to present figures to show that spending per capita after correction for inflation is falling and that this is unusual in recent history, I'm all ears. That I would agree is a legitimate metric. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #89 Posted August 9, 2016 (edited) I find your argument in the face of reality to be absurd. But hey ho.  Real spend £/head of population is going down. You know it, you just don't want to acknowledge it.  The Doctors are striking over the imposition of dangerous contractual changes, not for more money as you alleged. And you don't even seem to understand that we're talking about STUDENT nurses who are not paid. Given that nursing is not a highly paid profession, what do you think the impact of £9250 tuition fee's will be on the number of people studying nursing?  The conservatives are not repairing anything, they are stripping the country of assets. I'm not a fan of what labour did either, gordon brown and his pension raiding, costly unnecessary wars, and "the end of boom and bust". They're all a bunch of clowns who are in it for themselves, what's best for the country is far from their minds.  https://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2015/dec/07/will-scrapping-nurse-bursaries-help-or-worsen-nhs-staffing-crisis  If you want to catch up on the nurse bursary topic.  Spend per head http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/node/3778 Overall health spending has fallen by £12 per person but there are variations between the different countries of the UK. That's going to be worse this year though.  And a lot more numbers here http://www.nhsconfed.org/resources/key-statistics-on-the-nhs Edited August 9, 2016 by Cyclone Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
unbeliever   10 #90 Posted August 9, 2016 I find your argument in the face of reality to be absurd. But hey ho. Real spend £/head of population is going down. You know it, you just don't want to acknowledge it.  Evidence please  The Doctors are striking over the imposition of dangerous contractual changes, not for more money as you alleged. Rubbish.  And you don't even seem to understand that we're talking about STUDENT nurses who are not paid. Given that nursing is not a highly paid profession, what do you think the impact of £9250 tuition fee's will be on the number of people studying nursing? It was quite clear from my post that I do know this. Nurses start on £21k and can earn as much as £95k. I see zero reason why they should be exempt from contributing to funding their university education with generous government backed loans like everybody else. Most nurses my age make more money than me and I have a PhD in physics. Cry me a river.   The conservatives are not repairing anything, they are stripping the country of assets. I'm not a fan of what labour did either, gordon brown and his pension raiding, costly unnecessary wars, and "the end of boom and bust". They're all a bunch of clowns who are in it for themselves, what's best for the country is far from their minds.  If nobody in politics is to your liking, what are you suggesting? Give up? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #91 Posted August 9, 2016 (edited) Interesting aside, you claimed that spending as a % of GDP was a recent trick of the left to discredit the right.  In 2000, current spending[1] on health care in the United Kingdom was 6.3 per cent of GDP, and the then Prime Minister Tony Blair committed his government to matching the average for health spending as a percentage of GDP in the 14 other countries of the European Union in 2000 (8.5 per cent) through increases in NHS spending. But on the contrary it appears to have been a measure that the left were using when they were in power to set targets for themselves.  ---------- Post added 09-08-2016 at 15:28 ----------  Evidence please See edits, I was still adding links.   Rubbish. Head in the sand.   It was quite clear from my post that I do know this. Nurses start on £21k and can earn as much as £95k. Well this is going to be funny. What nurses earn 95k. And what is the median and mean salary for a nurse? I see zero reason why they should be exempt from contributing to funding their university education with generous government backed loans like everybody else. Because there aren't enough of them and we want more. Most nurses my age make more money than me and I have a PhD in physics. Cry me a river. We apparently don't have a shortage of physics doctorates. Or if we do then it comes down to academia and industry to create them because the government doesn't need to hire them to provide a public service.     If nobody in politics is to your liking, what are you suggesting? Give up?  We don't have a 2 party system. Edited August 9, 2016 by Cyclone Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
unbeliever   10 #92 Posted August 9, 2016 (edited) Interesting aside, you claimed that spending as a % of GDP was a recent trick of the left to discredit the right.  But on the contrary it appears to have been a measure that the left were using when they were in power to set targets for themselves.   That's not really relevant.  Anyway, I found some data for us: http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/wps/WP201521.pdf  You may be right that per capita real terms NHS spending has fallen slightly since 2010. But only very, very slightly.  We're getting into quote spaghetti here. Nurses pay: http://nursing.nhscareers.nhs.uk/why/pay_work_conditions/pay_scales Edited August 9, 2016 by unbeliever Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #93 Posted August 9, 2016 And the % of GDP spend that you dislike is also useful when making comparisons to other countries. http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2016/01/how-does-nhs-spending-compare-health-spending-internationally  ---------- Post added 09-08-2016 at 15:31 ----------  That's not really relevant. Anyway, I found some data for us: http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/wps/WP201521.pdf  You may be right that per capita real terms NHS spending has fallen slightly since 2010. But only very, very slightly.  We're getting into quote spaghetti here. Nurses pay: http://nursing.nhscareers.nhs.uk/why/pay_work_conditions/pay_scales  And yet we are getting older, fatter, having more diabetes, less healthy and needing more treatement... The spend has fallen slightly, the required spend keeps going up (required to just keep pace with the level of health issues). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
unbeliever   10 #94 Posted August 9, 2016 And the % of GDP spend that you dislike is also useful when making comparisons to other countries. http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2016/01/how-does-nhs-spending-compare-health-spending-internationally  No it isn't. What matters is how much front line resource there is to treat people. %GDP tells you nothing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #95 Posted August 9, 2016 So you don't think % of tax revenue dedicated to any given area gives useful indications about how much a country values that area? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
unbeliever   10 #96 Posted August 9, 2016  And yet we are getting older, fatter, having more diabetes, less healthy and needing more treatement... The spend has fallen slightly, the required spend keeps going up (required to just keep pace with the level of health issues).  That's a huge problem internationally. People are going to have to start taking more responsibility for illnesses caused by self-neglect. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...