Off Topic The QPR Not 606 Rolling Election Poll

There's a huge irony in there that I'm sure someone will notice...

 

Come off it Swords, we British bureaucrats used to govern people from up close, like Dublin Castle close.

That's enough for me on immigration. Let's have a look at another of Labour's promise things, the NHS.

As someone who works in the health industry (seperate debate to be had here, is healthcare a right or is it a commodity?) and who has had 2, admittedly brief and long ago, stints working in the NHS, I think throwing money at it is a short term fix at best, despite pockets of brilliance it's a mess. The NHS, although it has been 'reorganised' countless times, was designed 70 years ago. Time for a radical rethink, which I don't think any party is offering.

 

I wouldn't call the Empire a corrupt, cock up of an ideal ran by unelected bureaucrats governing Countries from afar because that would be too simplistic and false. There was both good and bad aspects. Just like the European Union which is a modern Empire. Its far from perfect but again, there's good in there too.

I just find it amusing that it always seems to be Conservative nationalists, who would undoubtedly have a fondness & pride in the history of the Empire (rightly so in many ways), who when the shoe is transferred to the other foot so to speak, begin clamouring for independence and the "dangers" and "threats" of foreigners. In other words, the adventurer spirit in them seems to have disappeared in a puff of smoke!

No more the globetrotting spirit of Lawrence of Arabia!






(at least not when its in the opposite direction )

 

This is so bad that it's good...

 

UTR's that bloody song just hung on my lappy repeating the same phrase over and over.

If you see a spate of "politics" related murders over the election period it's probably me.

 

The NHS is used by Labour as some sort of 'shrine' to their heritage which must be preserved at all costs, hence Miliband's half-baked promise to 'weaponise' it.

It is clear to anyone who has to use it that certain parts of the country are better served than others and the post code lottery of certain treatments is unacceptable.

Labour's new-build rush in both health and education through ridiculously expensive PFIs hasn't helped as the long-term costs are eye-watering.

Unfortunately, any constructive debate on reorganising it properly is always shot down by Labour in the same way they demonized anyone who raised questions about immigration and were labeled racists.

Until the politics are taken out of the debate there will never be a workable solution and you could say the same about education as well...

 

the nhs
does it still have more managers than nurses
can you still get tattoos removed or sex change(sorry gender reassignment)operations on the nhs
can you still book as many appointments as you want with gps and never bother to turn up
(is it still 1 in 10 missed appointments)
you pay to see a doctor here
maybe the nhs should charge if you cant be bothered to turn up for a free appointment

 

So no ideas on what to do, beyond doing what you say you detest - using the NHS for political points scoring?

The NHS is an extremely cheap system compared to other Western countries, we spend less on health as a % of GDP than any one else. Unfortunately the outcomes are also worse (the cancer survival rates are a disgrace). The system is entirely dependent on foreign medical and nursing labour. Workforce planning is a joke for all professions. We have pathetically low levels of diagnostic resources like MRI scanners and even the ones we have are used stunningly inefficiently, working hours only etc.

There are 3 brakes on change in my experience - as you say politicians (Ken Clarke is the only one who had radical change lined up in the late 80's/early 90's - Thatcher stopped it); entrenched professional positions and bizarre employment practices (GPs are self employed, consultants have strange contracts); but most of all the public who would seem to prefer going to a dangerous hosptal at the bottom of the road than travel 20 miles to a decent one.

Free at the point of delivery - right or wrong?
Fund from general taxation or have dedicated social insurance like just about everyone else? Or require people having a certain income to have private health insurance and use it to take pressure off the NHS? Or something else entirely?
The NHS is partly managed and measured as if it was in a market, should we expect hospitals to balance their books?

1 - myth
2 - never been true unless for psychiatric reasons
3 - yep, this is a big problem, along with people not turning up for hospital appointments and especially not taking the drugs they have been prescribed.
4 - NZ is really interesting, radical reforms of the 90s mean you spend less per head on health than any 'western' country. Not sure that this is something to be proud of. At the same time you have less access to new medicines than any other country because you won't pay for them. The UK is rapidly following you into the same place, already spend less as a % of GDP than you on health.

 

maybe the uk needs some long overdue radical reforms
the status quo seems to be a waste of money
how much is spent on the nhs per annum
what is the average nurses salary
what is the average managers salary
how much is spent giving full access to medicines(hope I never need to pay for something the nz govt wont)

 

Still haven't figured out Google Kiwi?

Here's a factlet for you - of 10 new(ish) cancer treatments with a variety of indications (i.e. drugs which can be used in multiple types of cancer) Sweden and Finland reimburse spending on 100% of the indications from public funds, Germany and France about 90% and UK 58%. New Zealand bottom of the list at 25%.

 

without looking at google what is the success rates of the 10 cancer treatments
being willing to spend money on treatment does not mean it is money well spent
anyway google would take me all night

 

Thing is, Labour always - and only - use the NHS for political points scoring. Sooper is right - they see the NHS as 'theirs', and woe betide anyone else from another party that tries to change it. For them, it really doesn't matter whether the change is for the better or not, they are fundamentally and ideologically opposed to anyone else touching it. Even when it clearly isn't fit for purpose, like at Mid Staffs, they will not agree that anything needs changing when they are not in power.

When labour ARE in power, it's all about figures and measures rather than patient care. They only want to gather enough figures so that at least one shows an improvement. The good work the NHS does is always despite Labour, not because of them. It's the front line staff delivering the service well, and the political left only interested in data and soundbytes.

 

That is a huge question mate, some of them provide high quality life for years i.e full remission (usually in combination with surgery and radiotherapy) others a few months. It also varies hugely by individual. Personally, though I may change my mind if ever in the position, I would never take 'end of life' chemotherapy which usually extend life by a few months. But the question is, should you and your doctor have the choice when in this position? The NZ and to an extent British governments have decided you shouldn't (unless presumably you want to pay for them yourself, but then in the UK you can't be treated in an NHS facility). They are certainly spectacularly bad investments compared to other medicines. Now go and tell a bloke with terminal lung cancer (non smoker) that he can't have the drug which might enable him to go to his daughter's wedding.

29% of NHS staff are nurses, 4% managers or senior managers (though this excludes people like ward clerks, IT staff etc). Nurses are undoubtedly paid very poorly - average £23k for a staff nurse (experienced specialist nurses on much more) though Directors of Nursing can go way over £100k. "Managers" start at about £22k but can go up to £250k as Chief Executive of some of the biggest hospitals which have budgets of £hundreds of millions. Those with the highest salaries are usually clinicians by background.

We tend to get very exercised by this stuff, but in fact both the NZ and UK systems are very cheap compared to others.

I think the basic question is are they good value? i.e are the outcomes and experience we recieve worth what we pay for them? My personal experience is very mixed on this.

 

see
that would have taken me all night to find out

 

This is getting a bit frustrating.

OK, even if we assume that nothing can fundamentally change about the way health care is provided in this country because Labour exercises an hypnotic control over everyone even when it is not in Government that makes the NHS sacrosanct, that doesn't stop you having ideas and suggestions about what you would like to see does it? I'm interested in hearing some policy ideas, no matter how poorly thought through/ off the cuff, rather than this relentless slagging off. If you don't have anything else, fine.

Personally I think that the fact that the NHS 'feels' free probably doesn't help control demand.

 

I'm not a politician. I don't have to come up with policy. I can say what's wrong with the political approach to the NHS without it getting frustrating.

However, it's not difficult to extrapolate, is it? We all know that the issues with the NHS are top-down and target driven, but that's all as taboo as immigration to Labour. The Coalition have tried to reverse that but have been attacked at every turn by Labour and their union paymasters. Labour do not have the monopoly on the NHS but you'd never know that if you just listen to them or only read the Mirror or the Guardian. Labour would have more credibility on the NHS if they stepped away from their ideology and started working WITH the other parties.

 

I'm amazed you have the patience

 

I find it fascinating, rather like looking into the eyes of a cobra. But it does feel a bit hopeless. As I posted somewhere above I have absolutely zero confidence in the competence and character of Labour, but it seems that simply opposing them is enough for some, no need for anything positive to vote for.

This is a truly horrible election, no ideas, no charisma, plenty of negativity.

As always, we'll get what we deserve, the charcter of the campaigns reflects the spin doctors' assessment of the character of the electorate, which says very little for any of us.

 

That's a rather simplistic, pessimistic, and not un-patronising way of categorising people's reasons for voting. labour are the experts at attacking the Conservatives without presenting any actual costed policies, but just because that's called out, doesn't mean that people haven't good reasons for voting the way they do.

My vote will be cast primarily on the economy, on education, and on long-term growth that gives me the best opportunity to have a good life as I work and approach retirement, and that will give my children the best opportunity to be successful in whatever they choose to do. My vote is for the party that clearly allows people to work, succeed, and enjoy the benefits of that effort. My vote is for the party that helps those that need it and that chases down those who claim what they do not deserve. My vote is for small Government, local accountability, and national success.

I have looked at all parties policies, in case any of them might change my mind. None of the published policies have altered my view that the only way that my view above will be possible (and in some cases won't be irretrievably damaged) is to have a Conservative government.

Everyone should know why they vote the way they do. Please don't assume that people that say they don't like a party do not have known reasons or doing so...

 

That's a bit clearer, apologies if I seemed patronising, but if you don't articulate what you are for rather than against it's difficult to see how to engage.

I'll look at the manifestos when they are published, I think we just have sound bite policies to date. I'm looking forward to an impressively well hung parliament, I think the process of forming partnerships is healthy.