liz Truss ?

[PETER SPRUCE 1]

Passed the buck (or stabbed in the back) when asked about the u turn on 45% tax ,said it was the chancellor who decided to abolish it in the mini budget not her, also when asked about long term energy policy their was no mention of fracking ,is the Lady turning already what a ** joke of a Prime Minister.
Great Brittan ,i beg to differ, back in Europe in the next five years.

 

[Always tangerine]

Fracking is f.......d ! So is she. We need to gat back in the customs union or single market at least. Meanwhile Truss and Khazi are planning reducing workers rights it seems, in businesses with less than 500 workers. That will go down well too.

 

[ElBurroSinNombre]

It's what Brexit was always about;

• Deregulation - for instance removal of environmental standards for discharge of sewage
• Privatisation - NHS is looking particularly vulnerable, article yesterday by David Davis in the Torygraph suggesting privatisation of health care
• Eroding workers rights - removal of 48 hour working week directive the other day, more to come from Rees-Mogg soon

With this government the lunatics have taken over the asylum, expect more of the above from Truss unless she is stopped.

 

[Ollygon]

It's what Brexit was always about;

• Deregulation - for instance removal of environmental standards for discharge of sewage
• Privatisation - NHS is looking particularly vulnerable, article yesterday by David Davis in the Torygraph suggesting privatisation of health care
• Eroding workers rights - removal of 48 hour working week directive the other day, more to come from Rees-Mogg soon

With this government the lunatics have taken over the asylum, expect more of the above from Truss unless she is stopped.

Davis is talking about an insurance scheme.

While there are some merits if this was run by a non-profit organisation, if it was operated by private insurance companies we'd be no better than America, which has a dreadful system unless you are rich.

However, we already have an insurance scheme run by a non-profit organisation- National Insurance, so around we go. Unfortunately National Insurance has now been absorbed into national taxation, so people can't see the connection any more.

It's interesting that the 2 top countries in the world for healthcare - Denmark and Germany don't cover dental costs in their national health and care scheme, and citizens have to take out private insurance for this

 

[Davepick]

Passed the buck (or stabbed in the back) when asked about the u turn on 45% tax ,said it was the chancellor who decided to abolish it in the mini budget not her, also when asked about long term energy policy their was no mention of fracking ,is the Lady turning already what a ** joke of a Prime Minister.
Great Brittan ,i beg to differ, back in Europe in the next five years.

So, as PM she didn't know that the C of Exchequer was going to do it then?
Didn't the Right arm know what the Ultra Right arm was doing then???

 

[1966_and_all_that]

La Truss now wants to ban the development of solar farms, despite running contrary to her stated aims of achieving net zero and becoming self-sufficient in energy provision.

 

[Wizaard]

So, as PM she didn't know that the C of Exchequer was going to do it then?
Didn't the Right arm know what the Ultra Right arm was doing then???

That's what she claims. Said it wasn't put to Cabinet. What ever happened to collective responsibility?

 

[Wizaard]

La Truss now wants to ban the development of solar farms, despite running contrary to her stated aims of achieving net zero and becoming self-sufficient in energy provision.

'Because they don't look nice in the fields'.

 

[foggy]

La Truss now wants to ban the development of solar farms, despite running contrary to her stated aims of achieving net zero and becoming self-sufficient in energy provision.

Not content with pissing off pensioners and homeowners, Truss now going after farmers. It's a bold decision to declare war on your own voters, let's see if it pays off.

 

[Costero Poderoso]

Davis is talking about an insurance scheme.

While there are some merits if this was run by a non-profit organisation, if it was operated by private insurance companies we'd be no better than America, which has a dreadful system unless you are rich.

However, we already have an insurance scheme run by a non-profit organisation- National Insurance, so around we go. Unfortunately National Insurance has now been absorbed into national taxation, so people can't see the connection any more.

It's interesting that the 2 top countries in the world for healthcare - Denmark and Germany don't cover dental costs in their national health and care scheme, and citizens have to take out private insurance for this

an insurance scheme if privatised will in very short order become profitised, and shareholder returns through increased profit will become the singular point of view of the organisations. its not just profitising the actual medical / health provision, but profitising each link in the chain as well as well as the support mechanisms. WE see it with parking at hospital where the charges and penalties are exorbitant, I'm led to believe that in most cases cafes, and other catering services are significantly overpriced and largely handled by major operators. But the insurance industry in any privatised operation will be looking for its margin and will revert to type and do everything it can to not honour claims, regulation WILL be hands off. Medical training will be further profitised. Education fees will go up, doctors, nurses and standards will go down it is an inevitability of a privatised model in health.

I've talked about this before but I'm going to say it again, in my company we provided a benefits package which in the offices in Spain, the UK, Russia and Ukraine, covered medical insurance for the majority of staff. In the states that sum of money was about 1 months premiums with significant numbers of exclusionary conditions.

Privatising the NHS has been a major agenda piece for the groups that fund the various Tufton Street think tanks, Brexit, taxpayer alliance who are the people who were behind johnson, and now truss.

 

[Newholland]

Not content with pissing off pensioners and homeowners, Truss now going after farmers. It's a bold decision to declare war on your own voters, let's see if it pays off.

Circa 90000 uk farmers
Circa 70% vote Tory
Approximately 63000 votes
Around 100 rural constituencies ( 25% of voters classed rural)
630 votes/ MP
Do you really think they give a shit?

 

[foggy]

Circa 90000 uk farmers
Circa 70% vote Tory
Approximately 63000 votes
Around 100 rural constituencies ( 25% of voters classed rural)
630 votes/ MP
Do you really think they give a shit?

They should, considering it's not just farmers who care about their livelihoods but all the people around them. Plus the millions of pensioners and homeowners I mentioned.

 

[Cuthbert]

Liz Truss is sure to make history

 

[dodgy_surname]

I’d shag it
But not vote for it
In the next erection

 

[Kurtan]

It?

 

[rockontommy]

'Because they don't look nice in the fields'.

They are a blight on the countryside tbf. No reason whatsoever why they couldn't be on every rooftop however.

 

[seasideone]

Why is a health system run by Private companies always going to be worse than the NHS??

The Private health system here is absolute Word Class and makes the NHS look amateurish at best.

 

[traffordtang]

Circa 90000 uk farmers
Circa 70% vote Tory
Approximately 63000 votes
Around 100 rural constituencies ( 25% of voters classed rural)
630 votes/ MP
Do you really think they give a shit?

Labour have a 13 point lead in blue wall constituencies according to todays papers. That should be a worry

 

[ElBurroSinNombre]

Why is a health system run by Private companies always going to be worse than the NHS??

The Private health system here is absolute Word Class and makes the NHS look amateurish at best.

It's probably only world class if you have a lot of money.
Where as the NHS is pretty good regardless of your circumstances.
The NHS setup could also be a massive strength in terms of R&D. We have an integrated health care system for over 60 million people where records are kept in a consistent and centralised way. This information can be mined and is very valuable. For instance the 100,000 genomes project, which is a spin off from the NHS, has already yielded promising results. No other country in the world can do this sort of thing at the scale that we can. To think of breaking up the structure and selling it off piecemeal to the private sector vultures would undermine all of this potential.

One example of the benefits of the UK's approach is here;

Maintenance Page - BRC

www.guysandstthomasbrc.nihr.ac.uk

 

[seasideone]

It's probably only world class if you have a lot of money.
Where as the NHS is pretty good regardless of your circumstances.
The NHS setup could also be a massive strength in terms of R&D. We have an integrated health care system for over 60 million people where records are kept in a consistent and centralised way. This information can be mined and is very valuable. For instance the 100,000 genomes project, which is a spin off from the NHS, has already yielded promising results. No other country in the world can do this sort of thing at the scale that we can. To think of breaking up the structure and selling it off piecemeal to the private sector vultures would undermine all of this potential.

One example of the benefits of the UK's approach is here;

Maintenance Page - BRC

www.guysandstthomasbrc.nihr.ac.uk

That’s simply not true about the money - it’s world class because it works, plus records are generally centralised as well - I use the term generally as nobody is perfect.

It’s insurance based (usually paid from employer) and topped up by the government or CPF fund if you can’t afford it or don’t have insurance.

….and regarding data - anyone can share it, it doesn’t just have to be the NHS.

There is an argument that we should share medical data anonymised globally for this, which would dramatically increase the benefit.

The reality is there is always different ways to do things and lefties tend to think centralise and state run is always best.

Which it isn’t! Just as private isn’t always best.

 

[ElBurroSinNombre]

That’s simply not true about the money - it’s world class because it works, plus records are generally centralised as well - I use the term generally as nobody is perfect.

It’s insurance based (usually paid from employer) and topped up by the government or CPF fund if you can’t afford it or don’t have insurance.

….and regarding data - anyone can share it, it doesn’t just have to be the NHS.

There is an argument that we should share medical data anonymised globally for this, which would dramatically increase the benefit.

You are missing the point.
No country does what we do at the scale that we do in a consistent way. The problem with sharing data from disparate systems is that the information cannot be aligned in a meaningful way.
The future of medicine is in data mining and we have a massive competitive advantage over every other country in the world because of the NHS. We should be looking to exploit this and we have started with things like the 100,000 genomes project. The UK is a leader in medical research precisely because of the health care system that we have. You would have us throw away our advantage so a few free market pigs could get their snouts in the trough and no doubt the service that we, the public, would get would be worse (like with most other privatisations of state monopolies).

 

[seasideone]

You are missing the point.
No country does what we do at the scale that we do in a consistent way. The problem with sharing data from disparate systems is that the information cannot be aligned in a meaningful way.
The future of medicine is in data mining and we have a massive competitive advantage over every other country in the world because of the NHS. We should be looking to exploit this and we have started with things like the 100,000 genomes project. The UK is a leader in medical research precisely because of the health care system that we have. You would have us throw away our advantage so a few free market pigs could get their snouts in the trough and no doubt the service that we, the public, would get would be worse (like with most other privatisations of state monopolies).

I am not missing the point - with UK health data you make it part of the tender process to share data in the same format.

Private is not always bad as neither is public running BUT a mixture of both is probably best.

Singapore is rated the second best health in the world with the UK wallowing down the list.

The reality is private works well here and nobody goes without.

You really should not be so one sided and understand there is more than one way to deliver stuff.

Reality is healthcare is EXCEPTIONAL here unlike the crumbling and terrible NHS.

Yes it’s terrible compared to best in class!!

If you need to see a specialist here you can see anyone generally within 24 hours and get a scan if you need one that day, or when you choose to do it.

You even get results the following day - WOW when I have a mate in the UK who is waiting 13 weeks for the result of an MRI - it’s a joke!!!

I can even make a booking to visit a doctor or dentist today - which seems to be a problem for our wonderful NHS - you can’t get a dentist and you might see your local GP a month next Thursday - the whole thing is screwed!!!

If I also so desired I can see a doctor within 2-5 mins of clicking on my app with prescribed medicines delivered within the hour.

Stop kidding yourself - the NHS is broken and needs sorting out and it needs to be radical…..or you can live in cuckoo land and think just more money will sort it - which will be wasted again.

Health index of countries worldwide in 2023 | Statista

In 2023, Singapore ranked first with a health index score of 86.9, followed by Japan and South Korea.

www.statista.com

 

[ElBurroSinNombre]

I am not missing the point - with UK health data you make it part of the tender process to share data in the same format.

Private is not always bad as neither is public running BUT a mixture of both is probably best.

Singapore is rated the second best health in the world with the UK wallowing down the list.

The reality is private works well here and nobody goes without.

You really should not be so one sided and understand there is more than one way to deliver stuff.

Reality is healthcare is EXCEPTIONAL here unlike the crumbling and terrible NHS.

Yes it’s terrible compared to best in class!!

If you need to see a specialist here you can see anyone generally within 24 hours and get a scan if you need one that day, or when you choose to do it.

You even get results the following day - WOW when I have a mate in the UK who is waiting 13 weeks for the result of an MRI - it’s a joke!!!

I can even make a booking to visit a doctor or dentist today - which seems to be a problem for our wonderful NHS - you can’t get a dentist and you might see your local GP a month next Thursday - the whole thing is screwed!!!

If I also so desired I can see a doctor within 2-5 mins of clicking on my app with prescribed medicines delivered within the hour.

Stop kidding yourself - the NHS is broken and needs sorting out and it needs to be radical…..or you can live in cuckoo land and think just more money will sort it - which will be wasted again.

Health index of countries worldwide in 2023 | Statista

In 2023, Singapore ranked first with a health index score of 86.9, followed by Japan and South Korea.

www.statista.com

The NHS is broken because of a lack of investment from successive Conservative governments. It is a systematic and deliberate underfunding that will end, no doubt, with a suggestion of privatisation as the only way that things can improve. That is what modern Conservatism is about. The only way that the NHS can improve is with proper targeted investment through taxation (as happened under the last Labour government). Ironically you left the UK because you felt that the tax burden was too high here. You cannot really make a meaningful comparison between the health care system in a small, very rich country like Singapore and the UK.

The system that you propose sounds similar to that of the USA where data cannot be shared in a meaningful way - like in almost every other country in the world. We can (and do) actually sell our data to foreign countries because they cannot do what we do. As regards health care data we literally are the envy of the world and we lead the world in medical research partly as a result.

 

[Lytham_fy8]

I am not missing the point - with UK health data you make it part of the tender process to share data in the same format.

Private is not always bad as neither is public running BUT a mixture of both is probably best.

Singapore is rated the second best health in the world with the UK wallowing down the list.

The reality is private works well here and nobody goes without.

You really should not be so one sided and understand there is more than one way to deliver stuff.

Reality is healthcare is EXCEPTIONAL here unlike the crumbling and terrible NHS.

Yes it’s terrible compared to best in class!!

If you need to see a specialist here you can see anyone generally within 24 hours and get a scan if you need one that day, or when you choose to do it.

You even get results the following day - WOW when I have a mate in the UK who is waiting 13 weeks for the result of an MRI - it’s a joke!!!

I can even make a booking to visit a doctor or dentist today - which seems to be a problem for our wonderful NHS - you can’t get a dentist and you might see your local GP a month next Thursday - the whole thing is screwed!!!

If I also so desired I can see a doctor within 2-5 mins of clicking on my app with prescribed medicines delivered within the hour.

Stop kidding yourself - the NHS is broken and needs sorting out and it needs to be radical…..or you can live in cuckoo land and think just more money will sort it - which will be wasted again.

Health index of countries worldwide in 2023 | Statista

In 2023, Singapore ranked first with a health index score of 86.9, followed by Japan and South Korea.

www.statista.com

Depends which survey you read to suit a particular agenda.

You're also talking utter ** bollocks.

Revealed: Countries With The Best Health Care Systems, 2023 - CEOWORLD magazine

Taiwan has the best healthcare system in the world, according to the 2023 edition of the CEOWORLD magazine Health Care Index, which ranks 110 countries according to factors that contribute to overall health. Two additional Asian nations were among the top 10 in 2023: South Korea (second place)...

ceoworld.biz

TOP 10: Countries with the best healthcare system

Why do some healthcare systems stand out from the rest? Take a look at this list to find out.

www.cignaglobal.com

Where Is the Best Medicine in the World: Top 10 Countries in Terms of Healthcare

Which states use innovations in healthcare and give patients the opportunity to choose where to be treated. ➤ Which countries from the rating issue a residence permit for investment.

immigrantinvest.com

 

[seasideone]

The NHS is broken because of a lack of investment from successive Conservative governments. It is a systematic and deliberate underfunding that will end, no doubt, with a suggestion of privatisation as the only way that things can improve. That is what modern Conservatism is about. The only way that the NHS can improve is with proper targeted investment through taxation (as happened under the last Labour government). Ironically you left the UK because you felt that the tax burden was too high here. You cannot really make a meaningful comparison between the health care system in a small, very rich country like Singapore and the UK.

The system that you propose sounds similar to that of the USA where data cannot be shared in a meaningful way - like in almost every other country in the world. We can (and do) actually sell our data. As regards health care data we literally are the envy of the world and we lead the world in medical research partly as a result.

The system I proposed is about making data sharing part of the tender process - if they don’t do it they lose the gig - simples.

…again the NHS is not underfunded, it just wastes money.
According to the latest data I can find….

The UK spends c$4300 USD and Singapore spends c$2300 per capita per year.

In reality the NHS gets far better deals from drug companies than Singapore due to economy of scale - so the difference in how badly run the NHS is probably even more starker than I thought!!!

If one country can provide the care at a much higher level for a lot less money where is the problem really…..

How it’s run OR How much funding it gets?

Health index of countries worldwide in 2023 | Statista

In 2023, Singapore ranked first with a health index score of 86.9, followed by Japan and South Korea.

www.statista.com

 

[seasideone]

Depends which survey you read to suit a particular agenda.

You're also talking utter ** bollocks.

Revealed: Countries With The Best Health Care Systems, 2023 - CEOWORLD magazine

Taiwan has the best healthcare system in the world, according to the 2023 edition of the CEOWORLD magazine Health Care Index, which ranks 110 countries according to factors that contribute to overall health. Two additional Asian nations were among the top 10 in 2023: South Korea (second place)...

ceoworld.biz

TOP 10: Countries with the best healthcare system

Why do some healthcare systems stand out from the rest? Take a look at this list to find out.

www.cignaglobal.com

Where Is the Best Medicine in the World: Top 10 Countries in Terms of Healthcare

Which states use innovations in healthcare and give patients the opportunity to choose where to be treated. ➤ Which countries from the rating issue a residence permit for investment.

immigrantinvest.com

What the reality is (however much bollox you want to post)….

Is that in Singapore you get seen, get scanned and get the results and followed up on instantly.

In the UK you don’t.

One is run well and the other is an abomination of an organisation that wastes billions.

Them the facts FY8 in cold heart reality whichever study you read or refer to.

 

[Lytham_fy8]

One is run well and the other is an abomination of an organisation that wastes billions.

I think this sentence pretty much sums up your bias, an abomination? Utter utter bollocks and you're not worth my time on this.

 

[Newholland]

Labour have a 13 point lead in blue wall constituencies according to todays papers. That should be a worry

Not to me... it shows some rural voters are prepared to vote for policy not party... I was going to use the terms competent and coherent but ever since the televising of parliament and celebrity status the current cohort of MPs seem to crave... very few are worthy

 

[seasideone]

I think this sentence pretty much sums up your bias, an abomination? Utter utter bollocks and you're not worth my time on this.

No wonder your dropping out as the evidence is overwhelming against the NHS - sadly!

 

[Chunkylad]

'Because they don't look nice in the fields'.

A bit like the thousands of new houses being built on green belt land across the Wyre, with no new schools, roads or health provision to support them.

 

[1966_and_all_that]

Not to me... it shows some rural voters are prepared to vote for policy not party... I was going to use the terms competent and coherent but ever since the televising of parliament and celebrity status the current cohort of MPs seem to crave... very few are worthy

The return of the spectre of fracking won't have endeared many in the shires.

 

[1966_and_all_that]

A bit like the thousands of new houses being built on green belt land across the Wyre, with no new schools, roads or health provision to support them.

Yep, Fridays on Poulton Rd are going to be wonderful.

 

[seasideone]

I think this sentence pretty much sums up your bias, an abomination? Utter utter bollocks and you're not worth my time on this.

Does this make you proud FY8?

Not fit for purpose and just simply a money pit with terrible management.

Patients waiting for routine hospital treatment in England hits record high

Seven million patients were waiting to start treatment at the end of August, with over 380,000 having been on the list for over a year.

news.sky.com

 

[Wizaard]

Does this make you proud FY8?

Not fit for purpose and just simply a money pit with terrible management.

Patients waiting for routine hospital treatment in England hits record high

Seven million patients were waiting to start treatment at the end of August, with over 380,000 having been on the list for over a year.

news.sky.com

What part of deliberately running down of the service under this 'abomination' of a Government doesn't compute?

It's hard to provide a great service with both hands tied behind your back.

 

[seasideone]

What part of deliberately running down of the service under this 'abomination' of a Government doesn't compute?

It's hard to provide a great service with both hands tied behind your back.

This is my point Wiz - the NHS does get funded and funded well, look at the stats above and compare Singapore spend to UK spend and the difference in Service.

The reality is, it is very poorly run and does not deliver what it needs to.

The only way it will ever change is to do something radical.

The first thing as a country we need to do is realise the NHS is not above major criticism and properly hold it to account.

More money is obviously not just the answer!

 

[Wizaard]

This is my point Wiz - the NHS does get funded and funded well, look at the stats above and compare Singapore spend to UK spend and the difference in Service.

The reality is, it is very poorly run and does not deliver what it needs to.

The only way it will ever change is to do something radical.

The first thing as a country we need to do is realise the NHS is not above major criticism and properly hold it to account.

More money is obviously not just the answer!

Funded well? Year on year cuts in real terms. Of course, if there are waste opportunities they should be taken, but to suggest that no one has considered that is nonsense.

We've had 10 years of austerity, which is a term to withhold funding where needed. That's why we were totally unprepared for covid. Short term economies at the cost of longer term resilience and stability.

 

[seasideone]

Funded well? Year on year cuts in real terms. Of course, if there are waste opportunities they should be taken, but to suggest that no one has considered that is nonsense.

We've had 10 years of austerity, which is a term to withhold funding where needed. That's why we were totally unprepared for covid. Short term economies at the cost of longer term resilience and stability.

Please go back through these posts and see how funded the NHS is in comparison to here and the difference in Service.

It’s down to poor management!

 

[1966_and_all_that]

Does this make you proud FY8?

Not fit for purpose and just simply a money pit with terrible management.

Patients waiting for routine hospital treatment in England hits record high

Seven million patients were waiting to start treatment at the end of August, with over 380,000 having been on the list for over a year.

news.sky.com

The fact (and it is fact) that the NHS is failing in a lot of areas is not down to the principle of a national health service, free at the point of delivery and funded through general taxation. It has been caused by years of intentional, Tory underfunding. The same is true of the armed forces. No-one would dream of outsourcing defence to privatised armies despite it also being underfunded. No, what is needed is a root and branch review of how the national health service is delivered in the 21st Century, and what sums are needed to fund it. For me, those sums have to be found before there is any discussion about cuts to general taxation, VAT or business taxes. In fact, I would include the country's need for community health, education, housing, policing, defence, infrastructure, energy provision and food before I would permit any discussion about tax cuts.

 

[Sooty59]

It’s time these places & not just the NHS let people who actually are suitably trained run the departments & not numerous tiers of management who then bring in more managers who are as bad as themselves, they seem to produce more & more red tape & bureaucracy & before you know it nothing gets done, for all the passing to & fro from Peter to Paul then Mary & back to Peter. If it’s anything like what I’ve seen in certain industries I’m not surprised there are backlogs. Instead of having an umbrella company, with self control for the various divisions, letting them get on with it, no they all disappear into countless meetings day in day out & nothing changes apart from more red tape as a so called solution.

 

[seasideone]

The fact (and it is fact) that the NHS is failing in a lot of areas is not down to the principle of a national health service, free at the point of delivery and funded through general taxation. It has been caused by years of intentional, Tory underfunding. The same is true of the armed forces. No-one would dream of outsourcing defence to privatised armies despite it also being underfunded. No, what is needed is a root and branch review of how the national health service is delivered in the 21st Century, and what sums are needed to fund it. For me, those sums have to be found before there is any discussion about cuts to general taxation, VAT or business taxes. In fact, I would include the country's need for community health, education, housing, policing, defence, infrastructure, energy provision and food before I would permit any discussion about tax cuts.

Thing is 66 the NHS wastes massive amounts of money and giving it more will not solve the problem.

Please read back this thread and compare the spend per capita in Singapore to the NHS and the difference is frightning.

The problem with the NHS is NOT funding, it’s the capability of the managers.

 

[1966_and_all_that]

Thing is 66 the NHS wastes massive amounts of money and giving it more will not solve the problem.

Please read back this thread and compare the spend per capita in Singapore to the NHS and the difference is frightning.

The problem with the NHS is NOT funding, it’s the capability of the managers.

Funding is a part of it, as is the culture of management. As with all large organisations, diseconomies of scale will creep in. This is why I believe that the health service - together with health and welfare in the community - needs a thorough overhaul.

 

[ElBurroSinNombre]

Thing is 66 the NHS wastes massive amounts of money and giving it more will not solve the problem.

Please read back this thread and compare the spend per capita in Singapore to the NHS and the difference is frightning.

The problem with the NHS is NOT funding, it’s the capability of the managers.

You cannot make a straight comparison of two vastly differing countries in any meaningful way as you are trying to do.
Culture, climate, life expectancy, diet, GDP, average salary, laws etc all impact on the cost of health care. Just saying that as health care costs less per capita in Singapore and therefore the private sector is better is just a banal and meaningless observation.

 

[seasideone]

You cannot make a straight comparison of two vastly differing countries in any meaningful way as you are trying to do.
Culture, climate, life expectancy, diet, GDP, average salary, laws etc all impact on the cost of health care. Just saying that as health care costs less per capita in Singapore and therefore the private sector is better is just a banal and meaningless observation.

As someone who has seen both and lived in both countries I am in a perfect place to make a comparison.

Of course there are differences, but not as big as you try and make out (you need a better argument than that as the spend difference and the standards you get are huge!), but you cannot deny they run a far better system here for a lot less money per head.

Try reading what I have put and not just dismiss things without any evidence - but then again very few lefties ever look at the facts

The solution to the NHS is probably a mixture of private and public sector, with far less levels of management and better management competency.

However much you try and hide it, the health care here is far better than the UK for a lot less money.

The fact they announced seven million people awaiting to start treatment proves the NHS is not fit for purpose and needs a total re-think.

As ever lefties think the answer is always more control and government and cannot see a balance.

 

[seasideone]

Funding is a part of it, as is the culture of management. As with all large organisations, diseconomies of scale will creep in. This is why I believe that the health service - together with health and welfare in the community - needs a thorough overhaul.

I genuinely do not think funding is part of the problem when I look around the world - the problem is management and how it is spent or rather wasted.

 

[ElBurroSinNombre]

As someone who has seen both and lived in both countries I am in a perfect place to make a comparison.

Of course there are differences, but not as big as you try and make out (you need a better argument than that as the spend difference and the standards you get are huge!), but you cannot deny they run a far better system here for a lot less money per head.

Try reading what I have put and not just dismiss things without any evidence - but then again very few lefties ever look at the facts

The solution to the NHS is probably a mixture of private and public sector, with far less levels of management and better management competency.

However much you try and hide it, the health care here is far better than the UK for a lot less money.

The fact they announced seven million people awaiting to start treatment proves the NHS is not fit for purpose and needs a total re-think.

As ever lefties think the answer is always more control and government and cannot see a balance.

Look at the table here;

Global cancer data by country | World Cancer Research Fund International

Explore rates of cancer according to country, including statistics for men and women, and discover which country has the highest cancer rates

www.wcrf.org

Cancer incidence is considerably higher in the UK than in Singapore. Therefore the cost of treating cancer in the UK will be significantly higher than in Singapore per capita. It is therefore erroneous to say (as you have repeatedly) that because health care costs are cheaper in Singapore per capita it is more efficient (without taking into account the rate at which diseases are treated).
That is one example in one type of illness, which is driven by various factors including life style and genetic makeup. Simply comparing cost per capita is so simplistic that it is meaningless.
Note that I have not resorted to calling you names, which is always a sign that you are losing the argument.

 

[seasideone]

Look at the table here;

Global cancer data by country | World Cancer Research Fund International

Explore rates of cancer according to country, including statistics for men and women, and discover which country has the highest cancer rates

www.wcrf.org

Cancer incidence is considerably higher in the UK than in Singapore. Therefore the cost of treating cancer in the UK will be significantly higher than in Singapore per capita. It is therefore erroneous to say (as you have repeatedly) that because health care costs are cheaper in Singapore per capita it is more efficient (without taking into account the rate at which diseases are treated).
That is one example in one type of illness, which is driven by various factors including life style and genetic makeup. Simply comparing cost per capita is so simplistic that it is meaningless.
Note that I have not resorted to calling you names, which is always a sign that you are losing the argument.

I haven't called you names - I have just refered generically to Lefties.

You are simply quoting an outcome, where I am looking at it as a whole.

It's one difference, but have you considered why and how money is spent? - a healthy lifestyle is more pushed here than the UK, and this is what I am saying about how the money is spent and the managent of the organisation.

They also start looking for things much earlier here...

Take breast screening for example, here Manaograms start at 40, the UK is at 50 - the reason they have a lower spend on Cancer per person is they try and catch it early. The same applies to many other cancers here - get it early by scanning and testing.

Bowel cancer screening starts at 50 here and 40 in some cases, the Uk starts at 60 and sometimes 55.

The whole thing needs changing in the UK, Singapore spends less by trying to get things earlier.

 

[Wizaard]

Look at the table here;

Global cancer data by country | World Cancer Research Fund International

Explore rates of cancer according to country, including statistics for men and women, and discover which country has the highest cancer rates

www.wcrf.org

Cancer incidence is considerably higher in the UK than in Singapore. Therefore the cost of treating cancer in the UK will be significantly higher than in Singapore per capita. It is therefore erroneous to say (as you have repeatedly) that because health care costs are cheaper in Singapore per capita it is more efficient (without taking into account the rate at which diseases are treated).
That is one example in one type of illness, which is driven by various factors including life style and genetic makeup. Simply comparing cost per capita is so simplistic that it is meaningless.
Note that I have not resorted to calling you names, which is always a sign that you are losing the argument.

A major part of the issue with Government departments is the in House tendering whereby costing is applied to everything rather than just getting on with it. This leads to unnecessary tiers of governance, forcing an artificially high price on things and vast amounts of people moving money around different arms of the same business, all in the name of competition.

It doesn't work. Private principles applied to the public sector don't save money, they cost additional unnecessary in house fees.

 

[Wizaard]

I haven't called you names - I have just refered generically to Lefties.

You are simply quoting an outcome, where I am looking at it as a whole.

It's one difference, but have you considered why and how money is spent? - a healthy lifestyle is more pushed here than the UK, and this is what I am saying about how the money is spent and the managent of the organisation.

They also start looking for things much earlier here...

Take breast screening for example, here Manaograms start at 40, the UK is at 50 - the reason they have a lower spend on Cancer per person is they try and catch it early. The same applies to many other cancers here - get it early by scanning and testing.

Bowel cancer screening starts at 50 here and 40 in some cases, the Uk starts at 60 and sometimes 55.

The whole thing needs changing in the UK, Singapore spends less by trying to get things earlier.

Backlogs have never been higher. Caused by a lack of investment, delaying 'unnecessary' treatments until they become life threatening. Staffing plummeted when we left the EU, but it was nothing to do with Brexit, honest.

The NHS would love to do more preventative investment but are too busy firefighting with the chronic lack of infrastructure capable of dealing with the here and now.

Where are the promised 40 new hospitals from the 2019 manifesto?

 

[Costero Poderoso]

What the reality is (however much bollox you want to post)….

Is that in Singapore you get seen, get scanned and get the results and followed up on instantly.

In the UK you don’t.

One is run well and the other is an abomination of an organisation that wastes billions.

Them the facts FY8 in cold heart reality whichever study you read or refer to.

the Singapore system is predominantly a state funded system, which is apparently means tested for most access. It mainly consists of a government-run publicly funded universal healthcare system as well as a significant private healthcare sector (which is latterly described as increasingly expensive) I think it is a Forbes article that was looking at the Singapore health system and the way it is being increasingly profitised. Financing of healthcare costs is done through a mixture of direct government subsidies, compulsory comprehensive savings, a national healthcare insurance, and cost sharing. whether that is more efficient is anybody's guess. I suppose in a highly authoritarian regime it works.

According to this years world population review, The UK has (depending on the specific index) either the tenth best health care or the the thirteenth (2 surveys). Singapore is at its highest at 16th and lowest at 24th.

Since 2010, the the singapore healthcare system has often faced shortages of hospital beds - sound familiar.

Like the USA if you can pay you get the best treatment.

 

[seasideone]

the Singapore system is predominantly a state funded system, which is apparently means tested for most access. It mainly consists of a government-run publicly funded universal healthcare system as well as a significant private healthcare sector (which is latterly described as increasingly expensive) I think it is a Forbes article that was looking at the Singapore health system and the way it is being increasingly profitised. Financing of healthcare costs is done through a mixture of direct government subsidies, compulsory comprehensive savings, a national healthcare insurance, and cost sharing. whether that is more efficient is anybody's guess. I suppose in a highly authoritarian regime it works.

According to this years world population review, The UK has (depending on the specific index) either the tenth best health care or the the thirteenth (2 surveys). Singapore is at its highest at 16th and lowest at 24th.

Since 2010, the the singapore healthcare system has often faced shortages of hospital beds - sound familiar.

Like the USA if you can pay you get the best treatment.

I know how it is funded. The US Pay circa 10k USD per person per year, Singapore is about 2.6k USD per person - so the costs are nothing like the USA.

The only time there was a shortage of beds that I have ever seen was at the hight of covid and they did not run out.

You can ague as much as you like, but if I want a doctors appointment tomorrow, see a specialist later in the day and get a scan with results on Monday - just as anyone else here I can without paying any extra - Try that in the NHS!!!

Yes its a mixture of Private and Public funded but it works and nobody goes without. Not sure if you realise either any public funding of the NHS starts with an individual or a company paying tax. Singapore does not collect as much tax as the UK per head, it allows the freedom to choose your level of care from the basic (which is far better than the NHS which is free) upto top level private care - the treatments do not change just the ward you might be in!!!!

Regarding the cost - it isn't that high as the previous posts show.

ps Profit isn't a bad word you know - if the servise are being delivered better at a fair cost.