But the NHS isn't allowed to spend money on anything but Drs and nurses, but then is complained at when it ain't as productive as the private sector (actually it is for healthcare) who do spend money on things that aren't Drs and nurses. Can't win
This is such a joke. Forecasts in multiple years are never accurate enough for a £20bn gap to be anything but a guess. We are so desperate to fill news every moment we just report so much crap.
Who are 'economists'? You'll always be able to find someone who calls themselves and economist who will say something. Maybe don't just report headlines, but actually what proper, grown ups are saying etc.
Whatever policy is proposed there will always be someone, a group, or think tank who will say it won't work, or will backfire. Every single policy. We need to do more than just report all the noise.
The NHS is trialing CoPilot and it does help on a wide range of things and certainly are areas where it helps admin productivity - the question will be, does it to the value of £10per user per month or whatever the licence will cost...and/or if this is the future, can the NHS not to?
Every headline about labour (and it may not be all they are saying, but certainly all the stuff that is breaking through) is about migration and small boats. Nothing on the 100s, 1000s of other things they need to be working on. I have no ideae of any other policy they have outside of migration
The NHS is generally considered to have some of the lowest unit costs for medicines in the developed world. It does amazingly well with its buying power.
I don't get the strategy either. They are going to get hammered by the right either way. Why not just talk and do things on the bits they want to do etc. The energy, effort and focus on a small number of people (this is all the small boats) is crazy!
errr...you can do all the stuff he is saying would be 'extra'. Its often via a coupel of different websites etc and you have a gov.uk log in (or ID shall we say). Maybe just bringing it all together under one banner would be good, but not sure where the ID card comes with this?
100% agree. This feels political and about being able to say tough on crime etc. I'd rather a few people who should have been convicted go into 'not proven' than 1 person who is inncoent get convicted.
Love the kingsfund, but this isn't 'looking at the numbers' its a thought piece around possible reasons, not analysis.
Anyway, my thoughts are in the same - i'd also add in that maybe there is a natural limit to the size of the WL. After a while there aren't the same number of people to get ill?
no....why should they? We may not like him, may disagree strongly with him politics, but in the same way GN news shouldn't bad hosts or Refrom shouldn't ban jurnos, you shouldn't just ban people.
We had fastest growth in the G7 or something last quarter didn't we!?! We are far far far too reactionary to every data point. This will also be revised later on as well.
I think we're going to disagree on this eitherway. Howerver, i do want to be clear i'm a passionate supporter of the NHS and its founding principles. We just disagree with what the issues are that we should be focusing on to try improve it.
Done nothing in terms of stopping Russia waging war. I was flippant, but its what 2 1/2 years of war, sanctions haven't stopped it and we've probably (i assume) by now used all the main ones, so feels symbolic. I'd also query, why haven't these been done sooner?
STOP BEING SO REACTIVE TO ANY DATA!!! Last quarter, fastist growong in the G8 of close to it - way, all great. This quarter, doom doom. We're too reactionary to too much data.
Ok - so what the NHS funds / doesn't etc - with you. Yes, this is always being tweaked and is certainly heading in the wrong direction and NHS tries to balance books. But clearly no where near "anyone who isn't critical" as you originally said and would have minimal impact relative WL size
It says as much about football fans as it does employment law that support of a sports team would actually mean you can't work with someone. ITS A GAME!!!!!
So, to be clear, you are saying that people are just being removed from the WL, despite still needing / waiting for treatment for no reason (apart from the political will / want to reduce the WL numbers?) I can't speak for every hospital, every pateint, but I really really doubt this is happening
I would absolutly prefer that the NHS can treat everyone in a timly manner - but it can't. So a patient offered the option to go to a private provider (funded by the NHS) to be treated quicker, is better for the pateint, and if it reduced the number of people waiting....is that not a good thing?
There is a genuine dicusssion to be had on the use of the private sector. I'm not a fan for a host of reasons, but it is what it is. However, if a patient is on a WL then they cannot be 'thrown off' to go to a private provider. They remain on the WL and in the numbers regardless of who treates them
