Have the Conservatives fixed our country?

[Cyclone 10]

That's a huge problem internationally. People are going to have to start taking more responsibility for illnesses caused by self-neglect.

 

Doesn't alter the reality that funding is falling, the NHS is in crisis on a whole number of fronts and the conservatives are part of the problem, not the solution.

[unbeliever 10]

So you don't think % of tax revenue dedicated to any given area gives useful indications about how much a country values that area?

 

Not really. It's more a matter of how much they support a field in terms of what that field is worthy of from a neutral perspective.

 

Besides, the comparison on healthcare is not a comparison of tax-revenue spent as most countries have much greater private sector involvement in healthcare provision. So you're comparing a state healthcare spend here with a hybrid healthcare spend elsewhere.

 

You complained earlier about the Conservatives attempting stealth privatisation, yet here you complain that we're not doing as well as part-privatised systems.

What would be your objection to a universal healthcare system with heavy private sector involvement such as those in Canada or most of Western Europe?

 

 

 

---------- Post added 09-08-2016 at 15:37 ----------

 

Doesn't alter the reality that funding is falling, the NHS is in crisis on a whole number of fronts and the conservatives are part of the problem, not the solution.

 

That's not a fact. It's an opinion.

Funding is not falling. It is however struggling to keep up with population growth. It's very close to flat after correcting for inflation and population growth.

Edited August 9, 2016 by unbeliever

[truman 10]

Head in the sand.

 

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/confirmed-the-junior-doctors-strike-was-about-money-not-patient-safety/

 

There's always 2 sides...

[Cyclone 10]

Ah, the good old spectator, blue through and through.

[unbeliever 10]

Ah, the good old spectator, blue through and through.

 

Is that the best you can do?

A vague implication of bias.

[truman 10]

Ah, the good old spectator, blue through and through.

 

Play the ball not the man Cyclone...it was in other magazines/papers as well..

[Cyclone 10]

Not really. It's more a matter of how much they support a field in terms of what that field is worthy of from a neutral perspective.

 

Besides, the comparison on healthcare is not a comparison of tax-revenue spent as most countries have much greater private sector involvement in healthcare provision. So you're comparing a state healthcare spend here with a hybrid healthcare spend elsewhere.

 

You complained earlier about the Conservatives attempting stealth privatisation, yet here you complain that we're not doing as well as part-privatised systems.

I didn't complain about not doing as well, I complained about not spending as much as a % of GDP. Please don't put words in my mouth.

What would be your objection to a universal healthcare system with heavy private sector involvement such as those in Canada or most of Western Europe?

Only the fact that it's a first step to a disastrous system like that 'enjoyed' in the US.

 

 

 

---------- Post added 09-08-2016 at 15:37 ----------

 

 

That's not a fact. It's an opinion.

Funding is not falling. It is however struggling to keep up with population growth. It's very close to flat after correcting for inflation and population growth.

 

By very close, you mean falling slightly. So whilst for the sake of argument I'd accept that it's pretty flat. You can't call me wrong when I say it's falling.

You are correct that it is opinion, as it is your opinion when you say the opposite.

You are carefully ignoring the ageing, sickening population though, so if funding stays flat then standards MUST fall.

 

---------- Post added 09-08-2016 at 15:59 ----------

 

Play the ball not the man Cyclone...it was in other magazines/papers as well..

 

It's an incredibly biased source. I wouldn't believe anything that I read in it.

[unbeliever 10]

It's an incredibly biased source. I wouldn't believe anything that I read in it.

 

I feel the same way about the Guardian.

Fortunately in this case, they are of the same view:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/26/80-percent-junior-doctors-took-part-in-all-out-strike

If you don't believe the Guardian either, tell me what you do think of as a reliable source and I bet you a penny to a gooseberry that it'll say the same thing.

 

So. Which bald-faced liar told you that it was about something other than pay and conditions? Because I think they owe you, and anybody else who they've conned into supporting them, a substantial apology.

 

I do not accept that with flat real terms funding per capita standards must fall even if demand is on the rise. Labour spent an awful lot of the budget on nonsense: middle management etc. A lot can be achieved by clawing that back.

 

I just cannot agree that healthcare spending as a fraction of GDP is a meaningful figure to work from.

Spending per capita is important, but there is also the matter of efficiency so it's only a piece of the puzzle.

Edited August 9, 2016 by unbeliever

[truman 10]

It's an incredibly biased source. I wouldn't believe anything that I read in it.

 

A vast leak of WhatsApp messages has revealed plans by the leaders of the junior doctors' dispute to "draw out" the contract battle with the Government and suggested pay - not safety - was at the heart of the row.

 

 

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-05-26/whatsapp-leak-reveals-truth-of-doctors-pay-strategy-in-dispute/

[psynuk 10]

from what I can glean the leak is secret and not public and the messages over a year are condensed into a few selective sentences by the hsj who hold an anti strike stance.

Wheres the raw leak data without the tabloid spin?

[unbeliever 10]

from what I can glean the leak is secret and not public and the messages over a year are condensed into a few selective sentences by the hsj who hold an anti strike stance.

Wheres the raw leak data without the tabloid spin?

 

This debate is backwards.

The dispute is about the contracts for junior doctors. Contracts which place a far lower limit on the maximum weekly working hours for such doctors than the old contracts.

Who said it was about anything other than doctors' pay and conditions and what evidence did they supply to back this up?

[El Cid 220]

That's not a fact. It's an opinion.

Funding is not falling. It is however struggling to keep up with population growth. It's very close to flat after correcting for inflation and population growth.

 

Fact, performance is poor.