Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hattori)
    it's going to be cut from the fat, like the fact that there is 1 manager to 1 hospital bed (or something like that) in the NHS.
    Er, I'm not sure if this is just me but don't they need to be putting more money in rather than taking it out from the NHS?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    Er, I'm not sure if this is just me but don't they need to be putting more money in rather than taking it out from the NHS?
    well i don't think they said they wanted to take money out of the NHS, that would be a very unpopulaur move. But they mean to cut down on the things that don't add anything to service like the NHS doesn't really need all those managers and the money they save on managers could be spent elsewhere like on more nurses, because nurses add more to the service.

    its all about be smarter with the money.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pkonline)
    Tories to cut public spending by £35bn - Is this their pathway to electoral success! lol

    They've announced the cuts in spending, but seem to hesitate on announcing their tax cuts too!

    How many doctors, nurses, teachers will have have to pay the price?
    Since labor came to power the government has created 150,000 new "jobs" in the civil service making the UK I should think one of the most overgoverned nations in the world.

    If one way the tories seek to cut spending is by ridding us of the many pointless government/quango jobs out there then well and good I say.

    As somebody once said, giving money and power to government is like giving car keys and whiskey to a 15 year old. The less governments spend, the more theoretically goes into my pocket to be usefully spent and the less is pissed up the wall by government. Sounds good to me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hattori)
    well i don't think they said they wanted to take money out of the NHS, that would be a very unpopulaur move. But they mean to cut down on the things that don't add anything to service like the NHS doesn't really need all those managers and the money they save on managers could be spent elsewhere like on more nurses, because nurses add more to the service.

    its all about be smarter with the money.
    I haven't actually read my newspaper for the past two days so I don't know very much about it. But I was going to say that it would be an excellent idea to take and distribute the money elsewhere.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    Er, I'm not sure if this is just me but don't they need to be putting more money in rather than taking it out from the NHS?
    I don't think so. Gordon Brown has poured billions into the NHS which, if what I have read is true, has achieved no discernable difference.

    The NHS is a bottomless pit, a bit like an old car. We're so fond of it that we cannot bring ourselves to admit that it really doesn't matter how much cash we throw at it anymore.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The Tories are such a joke!

    Has no one learned from the past?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *dave*)
    The Tories are such a joke!

    Has no one learned from the past?
    Well, of course if everyone took past performance at face value we'd never have seen another labor party either.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Well, of course if everyone took past performance at face value we'd never have seen another labor party either.
    Sorry, I meant another "labor administration" and not "labor party".....duh!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pkonline)
    Tories to cut public spending by £35bn - Is this their pathway to electoral success! lol

    They've announced the cuts in spending, but seem to hesitate on announcing their tax cuts too!

    How many doctors, nurses, teachers will have have to pay the price?
    you havent quoted the source for this information. ergo, it is rubbish.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I don't think so. Gordon Brown has poured billions into the NHS which, if what I have read is true, has achieved no discernible difference.
    Well, what you have read may have some truth in it, but it seems also to be severely misleading.

    Firstly, Brown increased NHS by a reasonable (although by no means sufficient) amount in late 2001/ early 2002.

    Of course, sitting here two years later, we have are not experiencing amazing changes. However, you really should take several points into account.

    1) Time. By the time those extra taxes are collected, distributed and spent, there simply isn't time for the effect to be fully felt.

    2) Not nearly enough money. We still lag behind other industrialised nations in % of GNP spent on the health service - the increases weren't nearly enough. IMO, there have been improvements (certainly this is true locally), but they are still embryonic and are reflective of the limited increases in funding.


    The NHS is a bottomless pit, a bit like an old car. We're so fond of it that we cannot bring ourselves to admit that it really doesn't matter how much cash we throw at it anymore.
    Yes, yes. This is the insincere fallacy thrown out by the neo-right.

    Of course, what it attempts to hide is that the NHS is poor, not because of its inherent structure, but because it is underfunded. Germany, etc, have excellent public universal healthcare systems, but spend a couple more points of GNP on them.

    America, on the other hand, spends way more in GNP than even Germany on a private system, and yet a significant minority have no proper coverage.

    And yet, the American system seems to be the one the Right want to work towards.

    Funny, that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    Well, what you have read may have some truth in it, but it seems also to be severely misleading.

    Firstly, Brown increased NHS by a reasonable (although by no means sufficient) amount in late 2001/ early 2002.

    Of course, sitting here two years later, we have are not experiencing amazing changes. However, you really should take several points into account.

    1) Time. By the time those extra taxes are collected, distributed and spent, there simply isn't time for the effect to be fully felt.

    2) Not nearly enough money. We still lag behind other industrialised nations in % of GNP spent on the health service - the increases weren't nearly enough. IMO, there have been improvements (certainly this is true locally), but they are still embryonic and are reflective of the limited increases in funding.


    Yes, yes. This is the insincere fallacy thrown out by the neo-right.

    Of course, what it attempts to hide is that the NHS is poor, not because of its inherent structure, but because it is underfunded. Germany, etc, have excellent public universal healthcare systems, but spend a couple more points of GNP on them.

    America, on the other hand, spends way more in GNP than even Germany on a private system, and yet a significant minority have no proper coverage.

    And yet, the American system seems to be the one the Right want to work towards.

    Funny, that.
    Llama boy! The voice of the lunatic left! How nice to hear from you!

    1) Time indeed! 18 years in the planning and nearing the end of their second term in office. How much time does this administration need? What is wrong with labor?! Are they bone idle, stupid, help me out here.....what's their problem?

    2) Yes, we do lag behind other industrialized nations in % GNP. But, of course that's not surprizing considering that for all intents and purposes the NHS really has only one source of funding (the State) whereas the French system for example enjoys great gobs of private finance. This of course is why people suffering from the flu in England have to ferry accross the channel for treatment in Calais every winter.

    The problem with the NHS? Simple. (And you're gonna love this!) NOT ENOUGH PROFIT!

    Love to stop and debate but it's time I wasn't here. Let's catch up tommorrow. I look forward to you explaining to me and providing great examples of the effectiveness of labor's clapped out "tax and spend" policies as they relate to the NHS or anything else.

    Byeeeee!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Llama boy! The voice of the lunatic left! How nice to hear from you!

    1) Time indeed! 18 years in the planning and nearing the end of their second term in office. How much time does this administration need? What is wrong with labor?! Are they bone idle, stupid, help me out here.....what's their problem?
    Well, they kept to Tory spending limits till 2001, then did a moderate increase. This is the heart of the fallacy - as I said, two years since the decision was made, not nearly enough time. As for "what's wrong" with them, well, they aren't prepared to spend enough to fully make up the shortfalls of the Tories.

    2) Yes, we do lag behind other industrialized nations in % GNP. But, of course that's not surprizing considering that for all intents and purposes the NHS really has only one source of funding (the State) whereas the French system for example enjoys great gobs of private finance. This of course is why people suffering from the flu in England have to ferry accross the channel for treatment in Calais every winter.
    There is no reason why we can't have a fully publicly funded well functioning health service.

    You also seem to have moved from your "bottomless pit" position, rather.

    The problem with the NHS? Simple. (And you're gonna love this!) NOT ENOUGH PROFIT!

    Love to stop and debate but it's time I wasn't here. Let's catch up tommorrow. I look forward to you explaining to me and providing great examples of the effectiveness of labor's clapped out "tax and spend" policies as they relate to the NHS or anything else.

    Byeeeee!
    Yes, of course. All those slacking doctors and nurses, all they need is the profit motive to kick them into gear. Riiiiight. :rolleyes:

    TBH, the opposite is true. Blair has already privatised everything in the NHS bar the core. The result? Cuts, cuts, cuts, and plummeting staff morale.

    No doubt the private sector will be along with some more targets, though, and everything will be alright.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Oh dear, totally forgot the major "success" of Blair's privatisation of the health service - the new hospitals built under PPP.

    Every decision on where, how and when to build new hospitals has moved from public interest to private profit. Would it be better for the public if we were to just renovate that existing hospital? Probably, but instead of doing that let's pull down the hospital totally, and build a totally new, smaller one on a less accessible site, with the added bonus that the site has loads of extra space that the private companies can profit from...

    *Every* replacement / refurbished hospital under PPP has resulted in a reduction in the number of beds.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Well it needs a total rehaul, and not the patching up that we see now. Carrying forward, the NHS need to reform, for better or for worse. So far it is ruminating, like a corpse.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    Well it needs a total rehaul, and not the patching up that we see now. Carrying forward, the NHS need to reform, for better or for worse. So far it is ruminating, like a corpse.
    You don't fancy supporting that opinion with any sort of evidence?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    You don't fancy supporting that opinion with any sort of evidence?
    Well, so far it is a patchwork of private/public service beiong supported by the government. Now, I am all in favour of going private for some minor illness and grants etc for larger illness.

    Towards the American system, but planned mroe carefully not to disclude the disadvantaged.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    Towards the American system, but planned mroe carefully not to disclude the disadvantaged.
    But why, when the American system even without greater support for the disadvantaged, is much less efficient for the money than other European ones?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    But why, when the American system even without greater support for the disadvantaged, is much less efficient for the money than other European ones?
    I had quite a bit of stats a while back on this subject, and it was pretty detailed. But it seems I have deleted it. The finding suggested that the Amewrican system, though full of flaws, is a reliable framwork to build on.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    Oh dear, totally forgot the major "success" of Blair's privatisation of the health service - the new hospitals built under PPP.

    Every decision on where, how and when to build new hospitals has moved from public interest to private profit. Would it be better for the public if we were to just renovate that existing hospital? Probably, but instead of doing that let's pull down the hospital totally, and build a totally new, smaller one on a less accessible site, with the added bonus that the site has loads of extra space that the private companies can profit from...

    *Every* replacement / refurbished hospital under PPP has resulted in a reduction in the number of beds.
    I think you mean "PFI" or "Private Finance Initiative" which of course was introduced by the Tories. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I think you mean "PFI" or "Private Finance Initiative" which of course was introduced by the Tories. :rolleyes:
    PFI and PPP are pretty much interchangable. Labour have fevourishly championed it since gaining power.

    I take it that you've conceded defeat on all other non-semantic points?
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 23, 2004
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.