CornwallFox

I'll do that

At no point did I argue health outcomes were worse with the number of patients being the same. You're creating a different scenario to suit what you want to say. So I'll withdraw from this conversation as it's not an honest one.

The NHS has treated more patients for the same money, so it's efficiency has improved. Meanwhile, other people haven't been able to access the NHS. That's not within the NHS system. If you don't think that's an efficiency improvement, it's your understanding that's awry.

You go from successfully treating 35,000 people to 50,000 in a year for the same cost. You are more efficient in what you've done. Meanwhile, because there's insufficient funding to keep up with demand, there's now 15,000 a year not being seen at all. So health outcomes overall are worse.

No, it simply means more activity for less input. Hence NHS efficiency improving as it's done more with less, but health outcomes have suffered. You either want a quality system or a cheap system.

I suppose if you think efficiency is more important that health outcomes

Doesn't this only takes into account state spending? It doesn't include insurance costs which people have to pay, so not really a fair comparison, as it isn't counting the full cost?

My understanding is that NHS efficiency improvements over the last decade have outstripped any other organisation. I think it's very easy for people to point at a large sum of money going in and to then say it's inefficient without any real analysis or reason for that belief

Again though, having insurance just brings inefficiencies into the system. Suddenly you're paying for the shareholders' bubbly. I'm never a fan of the fake removal of tax costs - that is to say, when a government tells you something costs taxpayers x amount so better to do it privately, there's never been anything that hasn't ended up costing more in this country. If you have to pay either way, taxation is more efficient.

Just regarding discussion of insurance based healthcare systems. While there are better outcomes around the world than we have currently here, that isn't because of the funding model. Money paid in through insurance or tax is still just money. What you tend to find in the places with the best outcomes is that collaboration is the key, rather than competition as we try to use here. Competition between health bodies does not lead to better results. What we should be doing to maximising collaboration. If it needs greater funding then funding via taxation is actually a better and more democratic way to go imo as the government gets to choose how to focus those costs within society - ie what taxes and at what levels to employ to bring in the revenue. It also means the government retains control over the system if changes are needed. An insurance model leaves it up to corporations how to generate revenue from customers, and also can leave insurance payers unprotected on a whim in the same way other insurance can.

Eee starting well down again. Do we think this is just amateur investors jumping due to recent losses and the underlying potential still remains positive? I've bought more today hoping to buy the dip as it were (though my overall holdings are very low)

.

They are but they're governed by their NHS contract. They're very different to dentists. It could be done with GPs and would be similar to pharmacists taking the prescription charge. Not saying it's a good or bad idea, just trying to give some clarity on the fact it could work sensibly.

No Id assumed wrongly that you were talking about potential privatisation of the NHS under reform as I didn't read your post correctly. That isn't what you were asking about though. 'fair question' simply meant I thought your idea wasn't necessarily a terrible idea, certainly compared to what I thought you were getting at.

Pr should have been implemented years ago. It's the only truly democratic way to elect a government.

The sound bites thing is an incredibly annoying thing across all parties, agree there be better off properly getting across what they're doing and why, instead of resorting to slogans. The £22bn black hole was real though. An example of something that was part of that: public sector pay rises. The Tories had received the independent pay panel recommendations well before the election (and those panels take into account the government's line on pay) and were going to have to be paid (particularly as the year before public sector pay was miles behind inflation and the Tories had pointed to the panel's recommendations as almost a binding reason they couldn't give more), so the Tories simply sat on the reports and didn't allocate any money. So when labour came in they needed to enact the pay panel recommendations and there was a black hole. Basically the whole thing was already a trap by the Tories. And there are loads of other examples that made up the £22bn.

Just on the first point about throwing money at the NHS. While the budget has increased over the last 15 years, it has increased far less than demand. Predominantly that's because we have an aging population, which brings with it much more complex healthcare needs. So demand has far outstripped funding. What really needs to happen is a huge increase in public health spending, to try to prevent illness, which I think streeting has talked about, though I haven't seen any detail.

Oh my bad, obviously made a wild assumption there. Fair question in that case. If there was a flat rate of say £10 for everybody except benefit claimants and pensioners, that could raise quite a bit of ££££. It would be electoral suicide though, the papers would wreck labour if they tried that.

Reform would produce an American style healthcare system. The most expensive system in the world with pretty awful results. The average insurance payment is more than the average mortgage payment in the US. And then insurers find ways to not pay out so you end up losing your house for calling an ambulance.

Thank you for replying in a way where we can have a conversation. I'm fairness to Labour they came in to an awful position. And they are taking a lot of action - french deal, potential German deal, hugely increased processing and deportations, changing how echr is interpreted to make deportations easier, potentially changing appeals process, talking of not giving visas to countries that don't accept deportations - which I suppose we'll see whether it works or not over the next year or two. I'm not convinced about the chaos tbh, I think they haven't solved the problem but it's just continuing from what they got given. It was never going to be solved quickly. Tbh I think labour have to solve the problem to stand any chance in the next election, and they know it, so they'll do everything they can. I think other parties kinda need the problem to continue as it's the only thing that will get them elected. I guess we'll find out over the next period whether anything changes.

Suppose it depends how the recent incomings pan out as to whether we'll need another striker/number 10/number 8. Otherwise both full back areas look weak, though I doubt the club will bring anybody in given we have two options in each position (which Choudhury seemingly now a right back).

I think the words far right are being bandied about because there is genuine concern that's what we're seeing. It's absolutely not far right to be concerned about immigration, to think that we should seek to reduce boat numbers, or to be concerned about changes to the national culture. They are perfectly reasonable talking points on their own. The concern many of us have, though, is that there are players out there pushing on from there to a place where people openly talk about immigrants as like 'vermin', talk about sinking boats and allowing those on board to drown, talk about removing legal migrants outside of the law, talk about burning hotels etc - this is far right rhetoric and always has been. You can see this happening literally everywhere online now, and more and more in real life.

What would you consider to be far left?

No. Not even close. I do for an extra top on for only the second time since about march though

That Nathan Dyer goal should go down as a hugely pivotal goal in that season. We had a little early season momentum but the turnaround in the match gave us huge belief and impetus. And the fact he put himself out for ages scoring it as a loan player.... He probably deserves more from us for that.