2015 Election season ..........stuff it in here.

[The Longstop]

Mini Fox - I might have to be a politician about that one and claim that's the intro, find an inaccuracy within the blog. It won a tongue-in-cheek award in 2010 from an independent branch of Leicester supporters club.

Buce - Typical lefty, can't win an argument try to discredit/smear instead.

[The Longstop]

'New Labour left the NHS statistically pound-for-pound the worst healthcare system in the world.'

I'd love to see where you found this 'fact'. As even though the Tories have done everything they could to dismantle the NHS, restructure it, so that it opens the doors for privatisation, and that it can never be reversed, it pound for pound is in fact is one of the best healthcare systems in the world. Yes it has problems, with a system so large that's an inevitability, but it make assertions without ANY facts based upon your own biased opinions, is not only laughable but actually very sad indeed.

http://blogs.channel4.com/snowblog/britains-health-service-world/25297

Funny your link seems to be from Channel 4, as Channel 4 acknowledged themselves our health service is least efficient in the world (hence pound-for-pound worst healthcare system). Documentary was called Britain's Trillion Pound Debt and can readily be found on well known internet video streaming websites.

[sphericalfox]

Funny your link seems to be from Channel 4, as Channel 4 acknowledged themselves our health service is least efficient in the world (hence pound-for-pound worst healthcare system). Documentary was called Britain's Trillion Pound Debt and can readily be found on well known internet video streaming websites.

 

You do understand how television works don't you. Shall I explain it to you?

[Buce]

Buce - Typical lefty, can't win an argument try to discredit/smear instead.

I wasn't aware we were having an argument; for some reason you keep butting-in to a conversation I'm having with Spherical.

[The Longstop]

You do understand how television works don't you. Shall I explain it to you?

Just thought as your source was Channel 4 it would be quite funny to prove my point from the same source. Shall we have a link off? It's not the hardest thing in the world to prove, there are league tables in health and education, etc and you simply divide budget by score to get a price per point if you're scoring efficiency.

[sphericalfox]

I wasn't aware we were having an argument; for some reason you keep butting-in to a conversation I'm having with Spherical.

 

You'd be wasting your time having a conversation let alone an argument with him. His general ignorance is outstanding. He should write a blog about that. That I'd read!

[sphericalfox]

Just thought as your source was Channel 4 it would be quite funny to prove my point from the same source. Shall we have a link off? It's not the hardest thing in the world to prove, there are league tables in health and education, etc and you simply divide budget by score to get a price per point if you're scoring efficiency.

 

Again, you don't understand how television works. I'd be wasting my time explaining to you how independent production companies are employed by Channel Four, and that it has as a broadcaster a remit to produce more than one political standpoint, but not necessarily in the same programme produced. That's how it receives licence payers monies. Do you understand that concept? Clearly not.

 

As you clearly, from the prose and depth of referencing and actual data within your blog, don't come from an academic background, and evidently have never worked in the NHS nor have any knowledge of how broadcasting works, so not  in the media, where exactly does your expertise lie?

[The Longstop]

Again, you don't understand how television works. I'd be wasting my time explaining to you how independent production companies are employed by Channel Four, and that it has as a broadcaster a remit to produce more than one political standpoint, but not necessarily in the same programme produced. That's how it receives licence payers monies. Do you understand that concept? Clearly not.

As you clearly, from the prose and depth of referencing and actual data within your blog, don't come from an academic background, and evidently have never worked in the NHS nor have any knowledge of how broadcasting works, so not in the media, where exactly does your expertise lie?

I work in statistics.

[sphericalfox]

I work in statistics.

 

Okay then you'll know the importance of providing evidence.

 

'Pound for pound' = efficiency

 

Here's a couple of links for you to chew over...

 

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/aug/07/nhs-among-most-efficient-health-services

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/06/economist-explains-16

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1288832/NHS-rated-efficient-health-care-study-ranked-life-expectancy-age-60.html

 

Here's a good one not from a paper:

 

http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/topics/nhs-reform/mythbusters/nhs-performance

 

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2011/08/08/surprise-report-nhs-most-efficient-healthcare

[The Longstop]

Okay then you'll know the importance of providing evidence.

'Pound for pound' = efficiency

Here's a couple of links for you to chew over...

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/aug/07/nhs-among-most-efficient-health-services

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/06/economist-explains-16

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1288832/NHS-rated-efficient-health-care-study-ranked-life-expectancy-age-60.html

Here's a good one not from a paper:

http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/topics/nhs-reform/mythbusters/nhs-performance

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2011/08/08/surprise-report-nhs-most-efficient-healthcare

OK let me try one more time to hammer home the message.

Health is ranked by country by the WHO on a number of measures. They have no reason to be biased and they are generally regarded the de facto measurement but of course someone could argue their scoring system isn't what they think it should be. Similarly, someone could argue Leicester shouldn't be bottom of the league because points should be allocated differently, but 3 for a win and 1 for a draw is the recognised measurement, and in this case the WHO rankings are accepted as the best measurement.

In those Britain tend to rank somewhere around 15-30th. We have moved up the rankings during the coalition government largely down to good results in primary care.

Each country has a health budget, which is an amount of money spent annually on their health service. Britain's is extremely large and has grown further (in real terms) in the last 5 years.

Measuring performance (on WHO rankings) and expenditure (on health budget) we have pound-for-pound the poorest health service in the world.

Do you understand?

[Guest Bilo]

Erm....

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/uks-healthcare-ranked-the-best-out-of-11-western-countries-with-us-coming-last-9542833.html

 

The foundation used information from its own 2011 national health system scorecard, as well as evidence from the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 

[sphericalfox]

OK let me try one more time to hammer home the message.

Health is ranked by country by the WHO on a number of measures. They have no reason to be biased and they are generally regarded the de facto measurement but of course someone could argue their scoring system isn't what they think it should be. Similarly, someone could argue Leicester shouldn't be bottom of the league because points should be allocated differently, but 3 for a win and 1 for a draw is the recognised measurement, and in this case the WHO rankings are accepted as the best measurement.

In those Britain tend to rank somewhere around 15-30th. We have moved up the rankings during the coalition government largely down to good results in primary care.

Each country has a health budget, which is an amount of money spent annually on their health service. Britain's is extremely large and has grown further (in real terms) in the last 5 years.

Measuring performance (on WHO rankings) and expenditure (on health budget) we have pound-for-pound the poorest health service in the world.

Do you understand?

 

Christ almighty you are dense.

 

 

The report itself is fairly short (32 pages), but included prior surveys and national health system scorecards as well as data from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The report also included a list of major findings — including these:

Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care.

Access: Not surprisingly — given the absence of universal coverage — people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries.

Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing.

Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year.

Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives — mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.

[The Longstop]

Someone's learnt how to copy and paste.

[sphericalfox]

Someone's learnt how to copy and paste.

 

Is that your retort?

 

Here you go...

 

[The Longstop]

Christ almighty you are dense.

The report itself is fairly short (32 pages), but included prior surveys and national health system scorecards as well as data from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The report also included a list of major findings — including these:

Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care.

Access: Not surprisingly — given the absence of universal coverage — people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries.

Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing.

Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year.

Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives — mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.

A quick glance at that report, because I do like to give everyone time of day, indicates that in fact you are the dense one my friend.

New Labour left office in 2010, this is this year. Re-read the blog, apologise, and I'll let you off.

[Guest Bilo]

So the NHS was the best health system in the world when New Labour were in office, but after five years of coalition government it's become the worst. 

 

Also, the above report is from 2013......

 

[sphericalfox]

A quick glance at that report, because I do like to give everyone time of day, indicates that in fact you are the dense one my friend.

New Labour left office in 2010, this is this year. Re-read the blog, apologise, and I'll let you off.

 

Reread the links I provided, there are various years of evidence provided both throughout the Labour years and Tory ones, that CLEARLY INDICATE that the NHS is pound for pound one of the most efficient healthcare systems in the world. Because you are too biased to accept this, and are continuing to make a fool of yourself is no skin off my nose. Your ignorance is the only evidence you've produced.

[Jimothy]

That's priceless! How ****ing stupid can you be!

[sphericalfox]

Already have - it's proved beyond doubt that length doesn't necessarily indicate reliability or quality. 

 

He's a statistician apparently, yet there's not one link to data, which you would have thought would be the lifeblood of his profession. All the stats people I've worked with, including those in the NHS, and I'm talking at the top echelons of the NHS, rely on stats to evidence their recommendations and or review where efficiencies can be made. They usually have something of quality to offer, and generally are very good at summarisation all of which aren't on show here.

[Guest Bilo]

Come on. I think everybody who's been paying any sort of attention knows the deficit claim is misleading at best, an outright lie at worst.

 

Even Fraser Nelson, editor of the usually rabidly pro-Tory Spectator, said that this claim was only true if measured as a proportion of national income. In real cash terms, it's down by a third. I'm no statistician, but I know 33% is some way short of 50%. 

 

Nelson said 'it shows that the Tory leadership is prepared to use dishonesty as a weapon in this election campaign.' 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-accused-of-lying-in-campaign-poster-that-claims-deficit-has-halved-9954930.html

 

I'm backing my claims up with fact - you're backing yours up with assumption, hope that you won't be called out on your nonsense and arrogant bluster. 

 

As for telling me to step away from posting on forums and look at the real world, I refer you back to your claim that you single-handedly scuppered the Lib Dem vote. Glass houses and stones spring to mind.

[Buce]

Come on. I think everybody who's been paying any sort of attention knows the deficit claim is misleading at best, an outright lie at worst.

Even Fraser Nelson, editor of the usually rabidly pro-Tory Spectator, said that this claim was only true if measured as a proportion of national income. In real cash terms, it's down by a third. I'm no statistician, but I know 33% is some way short of 50%.

Nelson said 'it shows that the Tory leadership is prepared to use dishonesty as a weapon in this election campaign.'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-accused-of-lying-in-campaign-poster-that-claims-deficit-has-halved-9954930.html

I'm backing my claims up with fact - you're backing yours up with assumption, hope that you won't be called out on your nonsense and arrogant bluster.

As for telling me to step away from posting on forums and look at the real world, I refer you back to your claim that you single-handedly scuppered the Lib Dem vote. Glass houses and stones spring to mind.

Overuse of LSD springs to mine..

[Guest Bilo]

Overuse of LSD springs to mine..

 

I'm actually being gentle because I seriously think he is mentally ill.

[Buce]

I'm actually being gentle because I seriously think he is mentally ill.

Damn that under-performing NHS..

[Guest Bilo]

There's actually so much wrong there that I can't even be bothered to pick it apart.

 

No matter how much evidence I supply, you'll keep me calling me 'son' and 'kid', pretending that your age somehow wins the argument, apply hilariously over-simplified analogies to the notoriously complex world of global economics and essentially make yourself look foolish with your 'down-the-local' understanding of the way the country is run.

 

I genuinely meant what I said earlier - if you genuinely believe that your poorly written, long winded blog has any impact on the national psyche, please see your GP about getting psychiatric help. 

[Benji]

I leave this thread for a couple of days and boy has it livened up.