General News Thread

[CornwallFox]

Just now, kenny said:

Hats off to that government? 

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

[kenny]

32 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

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

In a health setting, improving efficiency would mean better health outcomes.

[CornwallFox]

2 minutes ago, kenny said:

In a health setting, improving efficiency would mean better health outcomes.

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. 

[kenny]

1 minute ago, CornwallFox said:

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 think you may be confusing cost reduction and efficiency. Cost reduction can be part of an efficiency improvement but the terms are not interchangeable.

[Stevosevic]

What a mess this country has become. Terrifying what the future might hold. 

Edited 16 September 2025 by Stevosevic

[leicsmac]

19 minutes ago, kenny said:

I think you may be confusing cost reduction and efficiency. Cost reduction can be part of an efficiency improvement but the terms are not interchangeable.

Of course, there's then the additional factor of this being a sector where human life and suffering are key parts.

 

It's frightening how many people want to put a value number figure on those concepts. 

 

11 minutes ago, Stevosevic said:

What a mess this country has become. Terrifying what the future might hold. 

The same is true of every single country, I think. 

 

But a better future is still possible. 

[CornwallFox]

25 minutes ago, kenny said:

I think you may be confusing cost reduction and efficiency. Cost reduction can be part of an efficiency improvement but the terms are not interchangeable.

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. 

[kenny]

Just now, CornwallFox said:

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. 

So not an efficiency improvement then?

[CornwallFox]

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. 

[kenny]

4 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

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. 

My understanding of your post is very awry.

 

If health outcomes are worse but the number of patients are the same, then we may as well ditch oncology and install an elastoplast machine. For 50p per patient they can all be treated and we can be delighted with the efficiency of our health system.

 

Thankfully, efficiency within a health setting is measured on health outcomes not patient numbers.

 

 

[CornwallFox]

Just now, kenny said:

My understanding of your post is very awry.

 

If health outcomes are worse but the number of patients are the same, then we may as well ditch oncology and install an elastoplast machine. For 50p per patient they can all be treated and we can be delighted with the efficiency of our health system.

 

Thankfully, efficiency within a health setting is measured on health outcomes not patient numbers.

 

 

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.

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, Stevosevic said:

What a mess this world has become. Terrifying what the future might hold. 

FTFY

[The Bear]

I know someone who works high up in the administration of the NHS, and he says the main issue is the upper management of all the different departments don't communicate properly with each other. Leading to huge amounts of wasted time and money and red tape to get anything done. 

Edited 16 September 2025 by The Bear

[kenny]

10 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

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.

I am honestly confused by your points on this subject as they make little sense.

[MaidstoneFox]

1 hour ago, Stevosevic said:

What a mess this country has become. Terrifying what the future might hold. 

You think it's bad now, just wait until they regen dinosaurs

[leicsmac]

I don't think that it's irrational to have the well founded fear that those with power will use the idea of NHS reform to further line their own pockets via a system where it becomes much more difficult for poorer people to gain even a fair baseline of healthcare. 

 

Edit: the same goes for social care, and depending on the degree that those with power ignore the way the Earth is changing, it may become the same with even the most basic resources. 

Edited 16 September 2025 by leicsmac

[Tommy G]

Has Trump touched down yet?

[BKLFox]

5 minutes ago, The Bear said:

I know someone who works high up in the administration of the NHS, and he says the main issue is the upper management of all the different departments don't communicate properly with each other. Leading to huge amounts of wasted time and money and red tape to get through. 

Bingo
Everyone says chuck money at the problem but man someone at somepoint has to look at why it just hoovers what ever you you put into the hopper without making a dent.

Just last week i was attending an appontment with my daughter at 1 hospital this was a nurse appointment, she then had a consultant appointment 3 days later at a different hospital & imagine my surprise when i see that consultant in the 1st hospital, we actually both looked at each other & without saying a word must have thought the same thing "why the f am i having to see you in 3 days time if i'm/your here now seeing the nurse" obviously the consultant then went in with the nurse & saw my daughter, freeing up an appointment slot 3 days later & saving me a another trip to a different hospital.

But this & much more must go on daily, before we even get into medical contracts, outsource consultantancy fees, maintenance & cleaning contracts etc etc etc anyone who has a direct contract with an NHS trust is not just making enough to provide & survive they are creaming it because they know it will just get paid as once in the system the size of the system makes you undetectable.
 

[danny.]

2 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

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? 

I think you need to read up on how insurance-based state healthcare works in places like Germany. It’s very different to paying for Vitality or Bupa here. 
 

 

Edited 16 September 2025 by danny.
autocorrect spelling

[CornwallFox]

1 minute ago, danny. said:

I think you need to read up on how insurance-based state healthcare works in places like Germany. It’s very different to paying for Vitality or Bupa here. 
 

 

I'll do that

[BKLFox]

Someone above mentioned it was once the worlds envy in health care x# of years ago...but when anyone says do you know how many people live in the UK how many people think of that number as 55m 1st? I certainly do because for as long as i could remember it was always around that maybe +2-3m,  infact in 1990 it was 57m & it was still under 60m as late as 2005, its now just 20yrs later & pushing 70m in a time where population birth growth was meant to be on the decline in the UK.
Without disappearing down an immigration rabbit hole, the fact is more people are hitting it than 30yrs ago when it was the worlds envy 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

Someone above mentioned it was once the worlds envy in health care x# of years ago...but when anyone says do you know how many people live in the UK how many people think of that number as 55m 1st? I certainly do because for as long as i could remember it was always around that maybe +2-3m,  infact in 1990 it was 57m & it was still under 60m as late as 2005, its now just 20yrs later & pushing 70m in a time where population birth growth was meant to be on the decline in the UK.
Without disappearing down an immigration rabbit hole, the fact is more people are hitting it than 30yrs ago when it was the worlds envy 

This touches on a much wider issue that is also approaching, an age demographic crisis. 

[davieG]

We'd have better NHS if the different parties stopped reversing or cancelling each others decisions.

 

For example in my time they closed all the district hospitals to save money and pool technical resources in massive central edifice now they are building/ reopening many of them

[BKLFox]

25 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

This touches on a much wider issue that is also approaching, an age demographic crisis. 

true but you can see what it is up against if it only had to once accept 3m more people under its wing in a 15yr period to its current run rate of 10m in 20yrs 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

true but you can see what it is up against if it only had to once accept 3m more people under its wing in a 15yr period to its current run rate of 10m in 20yrs 

Letting things ride without more younger faces won't end well either. 

 

Successive governments have ignored the problem because they likely know there's no good solution to it.