Sentient meat: that is a doctrine of dispair. There most certainly are efficiency saving to be made in all the public sector. Go and have a look in today’s guardian and add up all the salaries of the jobs that NO ONE would miss. it will run to millions. And that’s in one week.
There is money to be saved. Let’s save it.
Also there is money being spent on things that we simply don’t need (olympics, domes, scotland and so on). That can be cut painlessly.
I fully accept that the american model is bollocks. That’s why I don’t want to copy it. But I do think we should do something, the present situation is also bollocks.
I once read an article that claimed - not unreasonably, if I remember - that it’s inevitable that the costs associated with a national health service can only go on climbing. The increasing cost of new technology and medicines, the provision of treatments for new ailments or where treatments were previously unavailable, the growth in population and the increasing age of the population all contribute to an inevitable rise in costs. A government can only hope to manage these through increased funding or reduced services.
I’m sure some of the factors are arguable, but the broad argument made sense to me. Whether Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat, the idea of reducing costs is a red herring; more efficient cost management may help, but it won’t act as a magic wand, and the temptation will exist to pass on any savings to other areas of social policy (education, law and order, defence and so on).
I’m undecided. I’d like to see a reduction in NHS services to help manage this, but I don’t know enough to know how to define “unnecessary” services. Cosmetic surgery feels like an obvious choice, but what then for disfigured children or accident victims? Is there any way means testing could work for non-essential services, or would that just add another layer of inefficient bureaucracy and delays in providing services?
Efficiency is what all public sector institutions have been striving for for years, owl. Of course improvements can be made, but your vision of schools, the police and the NHS getting better results with fewer staff is utter nonsense.
The olympics and domes are small beans. Agreed, the money to be saved will be millions, but the spending shortfall in fundamentals compared to the rest of the industrialised world is billions. You are giving the patient on the operating table a makeover and saying they’ll be fine.
It was historically the left which was accused of fluffy-headed idealism. Conservative economics now seem to come direct from cloud cuckooland.
the difficulty of british politics is that the battle-lines are no longer between the parties but within them.
maybe this deserves a new debate: but isnt a big thorn in the side of efficient public services the Treasury’s rules that money given to gov. departments has to be spent that year and cant be saved for the next year? Or have i got the wrong end of the stick ?
This is in line with the point I was trying to make about the NHS. It was set up in the 40s when the costs of medicine, and people’s expectations were unrecognisable from today.
It may well have been the best possible system for 1945, but it doesn’t work anymore.
Much the same has happened to the state pension, and the answer in both cases is the same.
The state should provide basic health care for its citizens and an income for it’s pensioners, but shouldn’t be relied on for total provision.
People are much wealthier than they were in 1945, and should be willing to contribute to their care etc, and if they do they should have this acknowledged.
I don’t know about you but I don’t plan to inflict state health care or education on my family.
Elected sheriffs and police commissioners? As an American, I might as well warn you that in major metropolitan areas of our country, the elected sheriffs have a tendency to aspire for higher office, such as mayorships, and run their offices politically.
I think I’d take the ‘inefficiency’ of a NHS over the profit margin per x-ray, the profit-led bonuses of the directors and local bosses, the dividends of the shareholder, etc. etc. any day. Privatisation is a nonsence panacea.
A private system encourages waste so much more than does a state system because there is profit on everything done; why take two e-rays when the profit on six is so much more?
And that’s what it comes down to for me, two different forms of market inefficiency. We just have to deal with the inefficiency as best we can.
I also think there is no solution, health care will always be a war that cannot be won. You only ever win or lose battles i.e. there is no ultimate solution, no final resolution to the issues - that mindset is wholly misleading, but it suits the ‘reformers’ pov. Straw man, etc.
The issue of health care is on going by its very nature (not conveniently solved by capitalist conventions - square peg, round hole), and always will be.
That the ones in inner london are pretty crap - ask Diane Abbot. Not all of them admittedly, but too many.
In a perfect world I wouldn’t be planning on spending £50k+ pa to send the bin lids to private schools, but the state alternative isn’t an alternative if one is lucky to have the choice.
It was a spreading of wealth from Councils, who tend to spend their money of Schools, Libraries, Police and other boring things to Individuals who subsequently sold up and spent the profit on all of the above rubbish. I don’t doubt those individuals benefited, but I believe that the wealth was better off exactly where it was.
No, it isn’t. And it’s all down to funding. The UK has no right to expect or demand a world class health service if it refuses to pay for it. Compare the figures with the rest of Europe. They don’t lie.
Yes. Because the private sector has made such a success with other national monopolies. Who can remember the mess the railways were in before the private sector was given it for pennies. Now our railways are brilliant! Aren’t they?
BUPA etc are leeches living off the investments made in the NHS. Any indirect funding by Government (as this would be) is a slap in the face of the NHS.
The sacred cow here is reducing taxes. I say again; if you want the best you have to pay for it.
Then vote against it. If not enough vote with you, well then, tough. The EU is us.
Any EU country can say this as any particular nationality is always going to be outnumbered by the other 11.
Hmm… So how would you class a country with a fairly comprehensive welfare state, rising taxes, and state provided health, education, and housing? Presumably you don’t want any part of the UK either then?
Agreed. Now, if you would like to answer the question: *Where do you think is?
You appear to be ducking this issue. We agree that British healthcare lags behind other countries. But then you come out with this:
This seems to contradict itself. Are you saying that we should resign ourselves to healthcare which lags behind other countries, or that “restructuring” could deliver healthcare comparable to these countries?
(BTW, if you wish to quote somebody, just type"quote" in square brackets before the snippet and “/quote” in square brackets afterwards).