A&e visits

[MarkDennehy]

They can't be setting that much aside every year though, that's got to be the overall fund. Otherwise they'd be sitting on trillions of pounds in "rainy day" money...

 

[Phil Pascoe]

In all kinds of different situations, I wonder how much money would be saved if people were just allowed to say "sorry!". Quite often that is all the wronged person wants, but because of protocol, insurances etc. it has become the unutterable word. Countless times over the years I've read or seen reports of people giving damages cheques to charity, saying all they wanted was for someone to admit negligence and apologise.
After all, if you ARE guilty your insurance is going to get caned anyway.

 

[bugbear]

Sorry Brian but you are looking at the wrong figures. I did not say 'expenditure' and neither did the article I linked to.

The fact is that they have set aside £26 billion for claims and potential claims. Here it is in their financial figures.

What period does that cover?

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

Comparison of the spend per head is meaningless in isolation. When you compare outcomes and see how countries that spend less per head than the UK have better survival rates for strokes, cancers and heart attacks you realise that the NHS model may not be fit for the 21st century and the blind defenders of the NHS that refuse to acknowledge its shortcomings and just demand more money are the health service equivalent of Luddites.

So what's you solution then? Sell it to Branson? Or Tesco?
NB defenders of the NHS are not blind, or stupid.

Oh dear Jacob I suggest that you re-read my comment. No where did I say that the defenders of the NHS were stupid but that is your tactic when you have no cogent argument, ascribe insults that were never made. It really is rather juvenile you know.

"blind defenders of the NHS" is an insult is it not? It implies we are stupid.
We are neither.
Yes there are shortcomings (with all and every organisation) but we don't believe the system is fundamentally flawed in the way you describe.
We do think that there is a lot of pressure to believe it is broken (just look at some of the posts above) to ease the process of running it down and privatising it.

 

[Sheffield Tony]

"blind defenders of the NHS" is an insult is it not? It implies we are stupid.
We are neither.
Yes there are shortcomings (with all and every organisation) but we don't believe the system is fundamentally flawed in the way you describe.
We do think that there is a lot of pressure to believe it is broken (just look at some of the posts above) to ease the process of running it down and privatising it.

I think you'd also need some blind spots to support privatisation.

Whatever the inefficiencies of the NHS, privatising so that we can create a career for a whole tier of health insurance peddlers driving BMW's and wearing snappy suits surely can't be the best answer for most of us. There are enough of those guys living off our private pension pots.

I also seriously doubt that any privatisation of the NHS would lead to any significant drop in our tax bills either. Someone else will have it.

 

[stuartpaul]

Sorry Brian but you are looking at the wrong figures. I did not say 'expenditure' and neither did the article I linked to.

The fact is that they have set aside £26 billion for claims and potential claims. Here it is in their financial figures.


When I originally posted I should, of course, have added "....and ambulance-chasing parasitical lawyers."

Not sure what point you're trying to make Roger? The article you linked to showed a large set aside for 'current and future claims' and showed £1.6 bn paid in the last year. This isn't 25% of the budget is it?

I seem to remember from my time in local government that the set aside process could lead to to high headline figures but these were in effect pro rata year on year so not one massive hit on an annual budget. Clearly £26bn would be unsustainable.

Incidentally, - you missed the 'scum sucking, bottom feeders' bit off your ambulance chasing quote!

 

[bugbear]

"blind defenders of the NHS" is an insult is it not?

You are quite right to pick Roger up on his use of loaded language and implied insults.

We cannot let such poor behaviour pass on this forum.

By anyone.

BugBear

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Yup. Get him up on a hate crime.

I do think that all the people who think civilisation will end if any of the NHS is privatised should stop to find out how much of it already is.

 

[Jacob]

Yup. Get him up on a hate crime.

I do think that all the people who think civilisation will end if any of the NHS is privatised should stop to find out how much of it already is.

Plenty of info out there not hard to find:
http://www.nhsforsale.info/privatisation-list.html
https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... utsourcing
http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/our-wor ... 0wodbGEEmA

 

[RobinBHM]

indeed, private finance initiative:

The modern PFI is the child of John Major’s Conservative government, but it was adopted and thrived under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Between 1997 and 2008, 90 per cent of all hospital construction funding was under PFI agreements, which paid for 75 per cent of all hospitals built.

 

[RogerS]

Sorry Brian but you are looking at the wrong figures. I did not say 'expenditure' and neither did the article I linked to.

The fact is that they have set aside £26 billion for claims and potential claims. Here it is in their financial figures.


When I originally posted I should, of course, have added "....and ambulance-chasing parasitical lawyers."

Not sure what point you're trying to make Roger? The article you linked to showed a large set aside for 'current and future claims' and showed £1.6 bn paid in the last year. This isn't 25% of the budget is it?

I seem to remember from my time in local government that the set aside process could lead to to high headline figures but these were in effect pro rata year on year so not one massive hit on an annual budget. Clearly £26bn would be unsustainable.

Incidentally, - you missed the 'scum sucking, bottom feeders' bit off your ambulance chasing quote!

I think the point is that this is money sitting in the bank when it could be used for front-line health care.

 

[MarkDennehy]

I think the point is that this is money sitting in the bank when it could be used for front-line health care.

My car insurance money could be paying for petrol too, but that's not a wise way to do things because it allows for no mistakes or accidents whatsoever.

 

[RogerS]

I think the point is that this is money sitting in the bank when it could be used for front-line health care.

My car insurance money could be paying for petrol too, but that's not a wise way to do things because it allows for no mistakes or accidents whatsoever.

And is also illegal to boot !

 

[MarkDennehy]

I think the point is that this is money sitting in the bank when it could be used for front-line health care.

My car insurance money could be paying for petrol too, but that's not a wise way to do things because it allows for no mistakes or accidents whatsoever.

And is also illegal to boot !

Well, yes, but it's illegal just in case some people decided they'd be unwise "because they're really, really, really like, GREAT drivers, like, the best".

 

[stuartpaul]

Sorry Brian but you are looking at the wrong figures. I did not say 'expenditure' and neither did the article I linked to.

The fact is that they have set aside £26 billion for claims and potential claims. Here it is in their financial figures.


When I originally posted I should, of course, have added "....and ambulance-chasing parasitical lawyers."

Not sure what point you're trying to make Roger? The article you linked to showed a large set aside for 'current and future claims' and showed £1.6 bn paid in the last year. This isn't 25% of the budget is it?

I seem to remember from my time in local government that the set aside process could lead to to high headline figures but these were in effect pro rata year on year so not one massive hit on an annual budget. Clearly £26bn would be unsustainable.

Incidentally, - you missed the 'scum sucking, bottom feeders' bit off your ambulance chasing quote!

I think the point is that this is money sitting in the bank when it could be used for front-line health care.

But it isn't 'sitting in the bank'. The £28.6bn reported in the NHS LA annual report and accounts for 2014/15 (http://www.nhsla.com/aboutus/Documents/ ... 014-15.pdf) is their net liabilities not what they have in the bank. An important difference.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

So it's worse???