This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- TSR opinion poll, Feb 2024: how would you vote in the general election?
- erin11 asks...have you registered to vote yet?
- LNAT Section B
- 2023–24 by-elections thread
- Can someone please give me feedback on my A-Level Politics essay?
- [Official] 2024 US elections megathread
- Edexcel A-Level Politics Paper 1 Essay Feedback
- How is prom king and queen elected?
- Should i vote Labour?
- Rethinking the nation state - what a Labour Government could do
- LNAT essay review
- How is Sunak doing as PM?
- Politics
- UK politics AUA (Ask Us Anything) – no question too simple!
- Community Awards 2023: Feedback and suggestions
- Any predictions for 2024?
- Participation crisis essay
- How does one even go about answering this question!?
- Pls give feedback on this essay!
- Kamala Harris is the Democrat VP pick
TSR General Election - Vote here!
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Moleman1996
this
So you cannot provide contrary evidence.
Egg. On. Face.
Original post by Morgsie
It is the role of the voter to hold Parties and Independent Candidates to account. There is also scrutiny of policies etc.
JPKC has twisted something I said yet Again.
(This is to clarify the matter)
JPKC has twisted something I said yet Again.
(This is to clarify the matter)
Why are you trying to scrutinise a joke?
Original post by JPKC
Why are you trying to scrutinise a joke?
Why are you making my life hell with your abusive comments????
Original post by Morgsie
Why are you making my life hell with your abusive comments????
What the actual feck are you on about?
This is hilariously petty.
I've campaigned or participated in some varied and different elections- choosing an A side for a record I sung on, football player of the year awards, SU elections, building society AGMs, and as a child a vote for favourite band to show how elections work (an occasion where Oasis beat Blur).
This seems to be the most unusual.
For the 634 who have voted so far, thanks for taking part, and for the others please vote for me- you know it makes sense.
This seems to be the most unusual.
For the 634 who have voted so far, thanks for taking part, and for the others please vote for me- you know it makes sense.
Original post by davidmarsh01
It's good that you're seeing where we're coming from better now.
We are in no way generalising that all disabled or elderly people have jobs, or well paid jobs. I mean that people who are classified as disabled or elderly who have well paid jobs and can afford to pay their own public transport should pay. Disabled or elderly people who don't have jobs, or have poorly paid jobs will not have to pay anything.
Do you understand better now?
We are in no way generalising that all disabled or elderly people have jobs, or well paid jobs. I mean that people who are classified as disabled or elderly who have well paid jobs and can afford to pay their own public transport should pay. Disabled or elderly people who don't have jobs, or have poorly paid jobs will not have to pay anything.
Do you understand better now?
Yes i certainly understand better now davidmarsh01 thanks for answering my questions,its appreciated
Original post by JPKC
So you cannot provide contrary evidence.
Egg. On. Face.
Egg. On. Face.
not really. A situation where patients are dying as a result of the poor care they're receiving in my opinion means the system is inefficient. If an ambulance driver gets a patient to hospital within 30 mins and they die, they've met their target. If they get a patient there over 30 mins, but save the person's life. They've failed. Efficient maybe, but succesful? No.
I can provide evidence, but I hope you'll excuse me for the next couple of days as I really feal quite crap, been off school all week and most of last week, so will have a lot to do once I get back. I have got some figures somewhere and i'll try and find them for you.
Original post by DebatingGreg
As it seems that you didn't see TopHat's reply to tehFrance's question:
I didn't, thanks for quoting me. As far as im concerned I don't consider an NHS with awful patient care as efficient. If someone was manufacturing 700 tables a day, but 50% were returned because they fell apart, they'd be considered less efficient than a factory turning out 500 good quality table a day. in my opinion its the same with the health service.
Original post by TopHat
Because standard of care is related to efficiency. If the NHS is extremely efficient yet is not achieving a good standard of care, that tells you that while it is using the resources it has as best it possibly can, it simply doesn't have enough resources. This isn't about making the NHS more efficient or more productive - that's not really possible. It's about giving it enough for it to create the standard of care it should be producing.
You can have one hell of an inefficient healthcare service that provides an excellent standard of care, efficiency does not equal high standard of care. I would rather have an inefficient healthcare service with high standard of care than an efficient healthcare service with appalling standard of care. Hell I am not even sure you are right about the NHS being that efficient overall, from what I understand it is rather wasteful of the resources it has. The NHS is run by people who honestly are clueless in the job, it is no-wonder why in Cornwall (for example) some of the top hospital exec's have left to the private sector due to the inability of their colleague's to do anything right.
I think you need to go to business school as this is one of those things that businessmen learn about more than doctors and nurses do, that efficiency does not always mean excellent customer service or in this case standard of care.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by JPKC
Morgsie: Holding the Monster Raving Loony Party to Account
Vote Lib Dem!!11!
You worried he might steal votes from your lot?
Vote Lib Dem!!11!
You worried he might steal votes from your lot?
Take a break, you don't need to act like a dick all the time.
Original post by wizardtop
I cant speak for Morgise on this matter but what i will say JPKC is this.I wish the best of luck to MRLP candiate in this general election at the end of the day i put my faith in the electorate to decide who should represent them in the MHOC
This
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Rakas21
Lol at all the negs in this thread.
We need more cheesy jokes! They all got pos rep
Negs are TSRs way of saying "come at me bro"
Original post by Moleman1996
not really. A situation where patients are dying as a result of the poor care they're receiving in my opinion means the system is inefficient. If an ambulance driver gets a patient to hospital within 30 mins and they die, they've met their target. If they get a patient there over 30 mins, but save the person's life. They've failed. Efficient maybe, but succesful? No.
I can provide evidence, but I hope you'll excuse me for the next couple of days as I really feal quite crap, been off school all week and most of last week, so will have a lot to do once I get back. I have got some figures somewhere and i'll try and find them for you.
I can provide evidence, but I hope you'll excuse me for the next couple of days as I really feal quite crap, been off school all week and most of last week, so will have a lot to do once I get back. I have got some figures somewhere and i'll try and find them for you.
I hope you get around to the evidence soon. While recovering you should read this - a leaked draft of the risk review that Lansley's currently suppressing. Truly scary.
(edited 12 years ago)
Can people stop referring to patient care in terms of efficient and inefficient, it is based on standard of care that cannot be measured by them. Yes I'd prefer an inefficient healthcare service that does their job to the highest standard rather that what we have now... this is why I love the Mixed Medical Economy as it is proven you can be both efficient and have a high standard of care and who is this thanks to? that is right private sector involvement.
Yes I understand that many are against privatisation however the MME is a system that provides high standard of care and is equally efficient in what they do, less wastage of resources is a huge one... the NHS fails badly there.
Yes I understand that many are against privatisation however the MME is a system that provides high standard of care and is equally efficient in what they do, less wastage of resources is a huge one... the NHS fails badly there.
Original post by tehFrance
You can have one hell of an inefficient healthcare service that provides an excellent standard of care, efficiency does not equal high standard of care. I would rather have an inefficient healthcare service with high standard of care than an efficient healthcare service with appalling standard of care. Hell I am not even sure you are right about the NHS being that efficient overall, from what I understand it is rather wasteful of the resources it has. The NHS is run by people who honestly are clueless in the job, it is no-wonder why in Cornwall (for example) some of the top hospital exec's have left to the private sector due to the inability of their colleague's to do anything right.
I think you need to go to business school as this is one of those things that businessmen learn about more than doctors and nurses do, that efficiency does not always mean excellent customer service or in this case standard of care.
I think you need to go to business school as this is one of those things that businessmen learn about more than doctors and nurses do, that efficiency does not always mean excellent customer service or in this case standard of care.
Either a) you've not read what I said, or b) didn't understand it. I like to think as a potential MP you'd make an effort, so I shall assume b). Let me explain things much more simply.
Efficiency is how well you produce something with respect to a certain cost. That’s the definition. A car is energy efficient if it takes a lower amount of petrol (the cost) to drive a certain distance, than another car would.
What does efficiency mean as far as healthcare is concerned? It means how well the health service produces quality of care with respect to the resources it is given (the cost). So, Quality of Care and Efficiency are linked. Let’s pretend, just for a moment, we can measure quality of care in absolute terms. We’ll give them units. We’ll call the unit a qualit.
If I give Hospital A $100, it produces 100 qualits. If I give Hospital B $80, it also produces 100. In this case, Hospital B is more efficient. If you gave Hospital B $100, it would actually produce 125 qualits!
See how it works?
So, there are two ways we can improve quality of care. The first is we improve efficiency. The second is that we give more resources (increase the cost we’re willing to pay). Which is the appropriate solution for the NHS? It’s the second. Why is it not the first? It’s not the first because the NHS cannot be made much more efficient. It is consistently ranked as either the most efficient healthcare system in the world, or at least in the very top ranked healthcare systems. There are some small gains to be made, but you are not going to see large jumps in quality of care as a result of efficiency improvements.
This is what I was proving earlier. My links were to show the efficiency improvement is no longer really an option. That’s why I said this:
This isn't about making the NHS more efficient or more productive - that's not really possible. It's about giving it enough for it to create the standard of care it should be producing.
Which you clearly misunderstood.
The way to improve the NHS, at this point, is spending more on it – giving it more resources to work with. The UK spends less on healthcare, as a percentage of GDP, than almost any other developed nation. If we were to increase the resources the NHS, then the quality of healthcare delivered would also increase.
This is borne out by comparisons with other international healthcare systems. The NHS usually ranks first in efficiency, equality of access, general diagnostics, and general treatment. The NHS’s problems are that there aren’t enough doctors per person and there isn’t enough specialist equipment to deal with certain illnesses (particularly certain cancers). Both of those problems are solved by giving the NHS more money – allowing it to buy specialist equipment and to hire more doctors.
The solution is not to privatise it. The key argument for privatisation is that it increases efficiency. Competition is supposed to cause firms to eliminate efficiencies so they can reduce their prices and outsell their competitors. However, the NHS, a national healthcare system, is actually MORE efficient than any large-scale private provider in existence. So, the main argument for competition simply doesn’t hold, given the NHS is more efficient than the proposed alternative.
Your argument for privatisation is that privatisation offers better quality of care. Given that private healthcare is not more efficient (see above), that means, by logical process, the only way it can produce better quality of care is by having higher resources. This just proves even further that the answer is not privatise, it is to give our highly efficient, superbly well run national health service the resources it needs.
Original post by TopHat
QFA
I read it. I understood it.
Yes however the standard of care can be high without efficiency, I do not understand how people do not get this at all. I'd pick an inefficient NHS (which it is currently despite all this crap you are touting about it being efficient) with high standard of care.
No efficiency is by definition 'Order, Organised, Regulation and Planing' it is not about the standard of care. Standard of care is measured in a different way to efficiency, you'd know this if you bothered to talk to people in the industry (I have, I know a fair few people in the industry through my mum).
Yes I see how your bull**** works.
So, there are two ways we can improve quality of care. The first is we improve efficiency. The second is that we give more resources (increase the cost we’re willing to pay). Which is the appropriate solution for the NHS? It’s the second. Why is it not the first? It’s not the first because the NHS cannot be made much more efficient. It is consistently ranked as either the most efficient healthcare system in the world, or at least in the very top ranked healthcare systems. There are some small gains to be made, but you are not going to see large jumps in quality of care as a result of efficiency improvements.
Efficiency and Standard of Care do not go hand in hand very well, it would be great if they could but if you look at attempts to make the NHS efficient, it has only resulted in corners being cut and standard of care dropping. It is quite frankly ****.
Again I misunderstood nothing. You are starting to believe your own bull****.
HAHAH you naive fool, spending more on the NHS that already squanders the vast resources it has it ridiculous, the entire service to be rebuilt from ground up, throwing money at it will do nothing.
Oh congratulations by reaching the conclusion from other services that you need to spend more to be more efficient... that is a stupid analogy.
No, it is very much a solution and who said anything about full privatisation? the Mixed Medical Economy takes care of both the rich and poor people of society for less costs, while increase the standard of care across the board as well as brining more doctors and nurses to the table.
Again you are basing it on full privatisation, something I have not advocated for. The NHS as it is, is a wasteful, mismanaged, squandering pile of crap with declining standards of care. It needs rebuilding not more money thrown at it. You on the left will need to get this into your brains at some point.
Original post by tehFrance
I read it. I understood it.
In that case, you’re simply wrong. Let me show you why.
Yes however the standard of care can be high without efficiency, I do not understand how people do not get this at all. I'd pick an inefficient NHS (which it is currently despite all this crap you are touting about it being efficient) with high standard of care.
If a system has a high standard of care but is inefficient, then it means that system is being given so many resources it doesn’t matter if it wastes a large amount. If you want an NHS with a large standard of care, give it more resources.
Secondly, now you’re just lying. I’ve linked you to numerous, professionally conducted studies on the efficiency of healthcare systems, each of which cites the NHS as either the top, or near to top, system in the world. In contrast, you have provided absolutely nothing to say that the NHS is inefficient. All you’ve done is insist “it is, it is!” without providing any prove to back your assertions.
No efficiency is by definition 'Order, Organised, Regulation and Planing' it is not about the standard of care. Standard of care is measured in a different way to efficiency, you'd know this if you bothered to talk to people in the industry (I have, I know a fair few people in the industry through my mum).
That’s not the definition of efficiency; those are ways of achieving efficiency. Standard of care is measured using KPIs (key performance indicators). A service is judged to have high standard of care if it consistently meets a set of KPIs. How well an NHS service can achieve those KPIs with a given amount of funding is calculated by each service, and this is called the NHS service efficiency growth measure – that is, how efficient that service is. This clearly demonstrates that quality of care is directly related to efficiency (the other factor being input). You can find more information here:
http://www.institute.nhs.uk/quality_and_service_improvement_tools/quality_and_service_improvement_tools/performance_management.html
Incidentally, you advised I go to business school earlier? Handily for you, the NHS’s management scheme works closely with Warwick Business School, so you can take some of your own advice at this point by reading the article above, which explains how quality of care is measured and how that links to efficiency.
Yes I see how your bull**** works.
Regrettably, I can only conclude either a) you have no proof to back your assertion the NHS is currently not efficient, and are thus jusy blustering and arguing for the sake of arguing, or b) you don’t know how this “bull****”, as you so quaintly put it, works.
Efficiency and Standard of Care do not go hand in hand very well, it would be great if they could but if you look at attempts to make the NHS efficient, it has only resulted in corners being cut and standard of care dropping. It is quite frankly ****.
What happened was that spending on NHS services was cut. If a service is capable of increasing efficiency, it can continue to deliver the same quality of care at a lower cost. Unfortunately, NHS services were not capable of being that efficient, because, as pointed out above, they are already operating at close to maximum efficiency. This meant that when spending was cut, quality of care was cut.
Again I misunderstood nothing. You are starting to believe your own bull****.
At this point, you really are just blustering.
HAHAH you naive fool, spending more on the NHS that already squanders the vast resources it has it ridiculous, the entire service to be rebuilt from ground up, throwing money at it will do nothing.
So once again, you provide the assertion the NHS “squanders” vast amounts of money, when all of the evidence I have provided shows it is more efficient than any equivalent private service. You still have no evidence of your own, nor have you attempted to contradict the evidence I have provided, rendering what you are saying little more than untruths.
You then offer another assertion; that we intend on “throwing money at it”. We have no intention of doing that, and it is a misrepresentation to say that we would. “throwing money” is when you simply offer more and more money regardless of the consequences. That’s not what we’re planning. We plan to increase spending to roughly the same level other OECD nations spend. Not only is your only argument totally unsupported, you are now misrepresenting ours in an attempt to save face.
Finally, you declare that the entire service needs to rebuilt from the ground up, despite the fact not a single reputable body agrees with you. Earlier on you said “you'd know this if you bothered to talk to people in the industry”; so let’s see what people in the industry say, shall we? The Royal College of Nursing are against top-down reorganisation. So are the Royal College of Midwives. So is the British Medical Association. And the Royal College of General Practioners. The Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Surgeons both refuse to support these changes. So, who was the one listening to people in the industry again?
Oh congratulations by reaching the conclusion from other services that you need to spend more to be more efficient... that is a stupid analogy.
You’ve misunderstood what I said. I haven’t said you need to spend more to be efficient. I’ve said we can’t get any more efficient and don’t need to work on efficiency, therefore the solution is simply to increase the resources available.
No, it is very much a solution and who said anything about full privatisation? the Mixed Medical Economy takes care of both the rich and poor people of society for less costs,
This is untrue. The Mixed Medical Economy ranks as poorer on equality of access, indicating it doesn’t care of the poor as well, and is more expensive – Britain spends less on healthcare than almost any other OECD nation.
while increase the standard of care across the board as well as brining more doctors and nurses to the table.
You increase standard of care and the number of doctors and nurses by paying more doctors and nurses to work for you and paying for better equipment. That has nothing to with MME, and everything to do with giving the NHS the funding it needs.
Again you are basing it on full privatisation, something I have not advocated for. The NHS as it is, is a wasteful, mismanaged, squandering pile of crap with declining standards of care
I’m not even basing it on full privatisation. The argument stands either way. And, once again, you’ve returned to asserting that the NHS is “wasteful, mismanaged, squandering”, despite all evidence being to the contrary, and with declining standards of care, which is also factually untrue, with the Care Quality Commission reporting consistently increasing standards of care, up until around 2011 when it merely became stagnant, and with public approval at an all time high.
It needs rebuilding not more money thrown at it. You on the left will need to get this into your brains at some point.
And finishing with an ad hominem. How lovely.
Original post by Rakas21
qfa
Rakas,
I’m genuinely curious as to whether you support what your candidate is saying? He’s not provided any evidence or any real analysis, and his refutation of my argument has simply been assertions. I do hope that this is not the Tory Party line, or, if it is, you have some actual evidence to back this up? I would like to think that you were capable of a well-thought out stance, even if I did disagree with it.
Beyond that, I must express my disapproval of your candidate’s behaviour. I’ve done nothing unreasonable, and yet I’ve been insulted multiple times throughout the above post. Are you going to take any actions regarding this conduct?
Original post by JPKC
Morgsie: Holding the Monster Raving Loony Party to Account
Vote Lib Dem!!11!
You worried he might steal votes from your lot?
Vote Lib Dem!!11!
You worried he might steal votes from your lot?
The candidate makes a fair point here. With the Lib Dems seemingly focusing their attacks on an independent standing for the first time, it says a lot about their confidence in their own vote.
The golden rule is to attack those above you.
Related discussions
- TSR opinion poll, Feb 2024: how would you vote in the general election?
- erin11 asks...have you registered to vote yet?
- LNAT Section B
- 2023–24 by-elections thread
- Can someone please give me feedback on my A-Level Politics essay?
- [Official] 2024 US elections megathread
- Edexcel A-Level Politics Paper 1 Essay Feedback
- How is prom king and queen elected?
- Should i vote Labour?
- Rethinking the nation state - what a Labour Government could do
- LNAT essay review
- How is Sunak doing as PM?
- Politics
- UK politics AUA (Ask Us Anything) – no question too simple!
- Community Awards 2023: Feedback and suggestions
- Any predictions for 2024?
- Participation crisis essay
- How does one even go about answering this question!?
- Pls give feedback on this essay!
- Kamala Harris is the Democrat VP pick
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
