On a salary like that, she can well afford to 'go private'.
On a salary like that, she and her colleagues could be replaced by many, more useful, medical staff.
UKIP and the NHS
- Thread starter pred
- Start date
On a salary like that, she can well afford to 'go private'.
On a salary like that, she and her colleagues could be replaced by many, more useful, medical staff.
Sponsored Links
On a tangent, but one that will have an impact on this debate in the future.
Advances in genetic mapping mean that inexpensive microchips will be able to test individuals for certain sequences. This will allow targeted drug treatment at the correct dosage rather than the scattergun overdosing that is the norm at the moment.It may also mean more effective preventative interventions by early diagnosis or prediction.
As someone said above, it is this low end treatment that balloons the NHS budget, rather than necessary high end treatment/operations.
It may well be that advances like these reduce the NHS budget enough to shift the terms of the debate.
Of course it could also mean that insurance companies cherry pick clients, so that some people are unable to get private healthcare, making the debate shift again. It may mean that some form of NHS or state insurance is more needed than ever.
Source for the above was a radio programme on engineers / chemists/ biologists working together and the advances they have made and were making.
Advances in genetic mapping mean that inexpensive microchips will be able to test individuals for certain sequences. This will allow targeted drug treatment at the correct dosage rather than the scattergun overdosing that is the norm at the moment.It may also mean more effective preventative interventions by early diagnosis or prediction.
As someone said above, it is this low end treatment that balloons the NHS budget, rather than necessary high end treatment/operations.
It may well be that advances like these reduce the NHS budget enough to shift the terms of the debate.
Of course it could also mean that insurance companies cherry pick clients, so that some people are unable to get private healthcare, making the debate shift again. It may mean that some form of NHS or state insurance is more needed than ever.
Source for the above was a radio programme on engineers / chemists/ biologists working together and the advances they have made and were making.
I hear you, M, but "the future" (especially for scientists whose livelihood relies on their research producing "results") can be a very long way away.
I'm approaching my mid-forties and, as an avid watcher of science then, remember all of the promised medical advances back then. If they'd all happened as they'd been predicted, no-one would be in a wheelchair anymore. I mean, the money available for a cure for male baldness, and that's not close to being there yet.
I used to subscribe to New Scientist, and remember a piece (around 2000) where leading scientists in many fields were polled for their best guesses on when certain scientific advances would be realised.
I think the consensus for "Cure for Cancer" was 2016. Does that sound plausible, now?
(For anyone holding out on fusion power, that was the gloomiest prediction back then - 2045). Reminds me of the phrase "It's only a decade away - and always will be."
Is this the perfect healthcare system? Interesting comparison here of different international systems.
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/...t-to-.html?soid=1102665899193&aid=knve5eYSfTk
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/...t-to-.html?soid=1102665899193&aid=knve5eYSfTk
Sponsored Links
Throw this one into the mix...
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournh...ons-of-wasted-nhs-cash-noone-wants-to-mention
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournh...ons-of-wasted-nhs-cash-noone-wants-to-mention
Scientific advances will only make individual treatments inexpensive.
Overall healthcare costs will only rise, massively, more treatments mean more survivors, who will go on to catch or develop more diseases or old age related problems.
Overall healthcare costs will only rise, massively, more treatments mean more survivors, who will go on to catch or develop more diseases or old age related problems.
Its just what happens in an organisation that face no competition, and is taxpayer funded.
The managers expand rent seeking, more costs, more managers.
The conservative solution to this is to add competition (privatise some of the NHS), private companies are much less willing to fund an excess of admin a managerial wages.
I'm not entirely convinced about half privatisation, it runs the risk of people trying to treat healthcare as a ‘liquidatable’ asset
The managers expand rent seeking, more costs, more managers.
The conservative solution to this is to add competition (privatise some of the NHS), private companies are much less willing to fund an excess of admin a managerial wages.
I'm not entirely convinced about half privatisation, it runs the risk of people trying to treat healthcare as a ‘liquidatable’ asset
W
wkdhd
http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/topics/nhs-reform/mythbusters/nhs-managers
The private companies I worked in seemed to have rather high managerial costs
The private companies I worked in seemed to have rather high managerial costs
I can't see how they work it out.
What about management and administerial duties carried out by docs n nurses, they won't be on the payroll as managers or admin.
What about management and administerial duties carried out by docs n nurses, they won't be on the payroll as managers or admin.
W
wkdhd
I imagine you can't. I think pretty much everyone in any business does some admin.
W
wkdhd
a) not so
b) probably good to read the article first. The point is that privatisation makes it more costly.
I wrote some software for ntl once. This was for a department that planned phone towers. The software was to provide information their IT dept wouldn't and they actually employed someone who was known as the anti-IT department. I asked the boss how many days a week out of 5 they spent running NTL as opposed to progressing anything. He said 4. Don't get any funny ideas that private companies are in some way efficient. It's just that accounts for public ones get sifted through. We pay for inefficiencies in all organisations
Exactly , the whole market place approach just wastes money and it's not just the NHS , private companies jack up prices to any public outfit from health , the military to any sort of infer structure .
Uh, that's not a failure of private companies, that's a failure due an absence of privatization and competition (public bodies don't have to lower their prices, therefore their costs).
I don't necessarily agree with privatisation of some services, but at least you should understand the economics of the arguments.
Was this in the good ole days where they had a virtual monopoly, same as BT continue to do so.
Again, privatisation works only where there is competition, why do you think supermarkets continue to drive down prices, but BT continues to provide an utterly appalling service.
Sponsored Links
