Actor Michael Sheen's Excellent Speech Slams Parties About The NHS Cuts

[sean99]

Two things jump out from this picture. First and most obviously the US spends far too much on healthcare. But secondly the UK really spends quite little.

In that light the NHS appears to be delivering excellent results on its very limited budget.

Perhaps if there hadn't been an Iraq war, or if the UK had a sensible housing policy (not involving paying enormous amounts of housing benefit to private landlords) NHS funding could be brought up to the European average, likely with improved outcomes.

But for what you pay I think you get a lot in the UK.

 

[Brian]

Digs hole, digs deeper.
So now we're moving on from money going to Tory mates and Nulab mates (oh no they didn't, oh yes they did...) to, ahem, 18 years of Tory neglect.
For some spending data please take a look here - http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/data-and-charts/history-nhs-spending-uk
Interesting that the tightest period of funding in the last 50 years was between 1975/6 and 1979/80.

You deny 19 years of neglect of the NHS...

 

[wyjsar]

Those figures would be the sum of public and private healthcare spend... yes?
In which case the NHS provides very good value for money, though I'd hesitate to describe its budget (>£100bn) as being very limited.

 

[Brian]

Digs hole, digs deeper.
So now we're moving on from money going to Tory mates and Nulab mates (oh no they didn't, oh yes they did...) to, ahem, 18 years of Tory neglect.
For some spending data please take a look here - http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/data-and-charts/history-nhs-spending-uk
Interesting that the tightest period of funding in the last 50 years was between 1975/6 and 1979/80.

You deny 19 years of neglect of the NHS...

Mate, if you support tory ideology just admit it and accept what it means.

 

[wyjsar]

You deny 19 years of neglect of the NHS...

The Nuffield figures show an increase in both real terms and in % of GDP during the Thatcher / Major years.
You appear to be denying facts.

 

[sean99]

Those figures would be the sum of public and private healthcare spend... yes?
In which case the NHS provides very good value for money, though I'd hesitate to describe its budget (>£100bn) as being very limited.

I believe so. What's really shocking is that the US government spends more per capita on healthcare than the UK government !!!!! and only covers a fraction of the population (elderly, veterans).

My "very limited" refers to per-capita spending compared with peer countries (France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands). The UK spends far less per capita than other Euro nations.

This figure claims to show a breakdown of public vs private health spending

 

[Jo Sharp]

The Nuffield figures show an increase in both real terms and in % of GDP during the Thatcher / Major years.
You appear to be denying facts.

We've done this before several times. The figures are indisputable and show that NHS spending under the Thatcher govt was above any inflation measure you care to use. Brian seems to be unable to accept the truth in spite of the figures being quoted and linked. I think you are wasting your time.

 

[Brian]

The Nuffield figures show an increase in both real terms and in % of GDP during the Thatcher / Major years.
You appear to be denying facts.

A tory once again thinking in a simplistic fashion about money.

They increased prescription charges by 1150% during those 19 years, that's an interesting fact about money.

We've done this before several times. The figures are indisputable and show that NHS spending under the Thatcher govt was above any inflation measure you care to use. Brian seems to be unable to accept the truth in spite of the figures being quoted and linked. I think you are wasting your time.

Neither of you appear to understand there is more to it than money.

As I've said before, I've never voted Labour and I certainly don't rate the present lot, so I have no affiliation. Doubtful either of you can say you don't support everything tory as a knee-jerk, so I'm afraid it is me who is wasting my time exchanging comment here.

Any comment yet on how to recover from the NHS decline over 19 years? You're critical of what Labour did about it so here is another chance to tell everyone what you would have done.

 

[merlin]

But for what you pay I think you get a lot in the UK.

The problem is you are making a comparison with the US. They are the exception rather than the rule and a perfect example of what private health facilities end up costing government.

Of more relevance is France and Germany. Have you ever been treated in either of those countries? It's like a whole different world.

The childish party politics banter is utterly irrelevant IMHO. You can never have enough money. You can however use what you have wisely.

The real problem for me is that Thatcher and Major looked to the US for a business model and the introduction of PFI's have placed an ongoing burden on the tax payer that the US figures demonstrate perfectly.

Now Blair and Brown were just as guilty of following the PFI mantra so let's not get into silly politics. The real problem here is the increasing costs of leasing privately owned facilities and apparently a vastly higher percentage of total spend being wasted on administration. In the US, 33% of the budget appears to go on administration and beaurocracy. Pre Thatcher, in the UK it was only 5% and we were told the public sector was wasteful.

Now it's far higher AFAIK and the only people benefiting from these changes are the private companies who now own OUR hospitals and OUR clinics. Sadly most of the sick and ailing in our community do not have shares. When they were younger, the country actually had control over it's finances and had assets of it's own. Unfortunately successive governments appear to have sold most of those to balance the books for the electorate and to keep their jobs in the short term.

 

[Mick P]

Merlin

You are fast becoming as ill informed as dear old Brian in the sense you criticise anything without getting your facts right.

1. Governments are elected on a manifesto and whilst some prefer spending money on defence, some may prefer to spend it on say healthcare. Once the government has been elected, we all have to run with it.

2. Nulab (as it was then) expanded PFI at a terrific rate ( I was in the PFI industry at the time and had more work than I could handle) and yes this had two effects.

a) New hospitals were built at a record rate and had those hospitals not have been built, people would have died in their thousands.

b) The debt of the PFI has indeed been passed down to our children but they will be benefitting from the treatment in the hospitals for years to come, so it is fitting that they help to pay for it.

Not one political party is seeking to wrap up the NHS. What is quite correctly happening is that some services are being put out to tender and will pass to the private sector, only if it advantageous to do so. These tenders are covered and strictly monitored under the EU procurement process and quarterly statements on cost and performance are used to monitor the agreements that can be used to terminate a badly run contract. There are rarely job losses because most of the front line staff are TUPED.

The totally stupid statement used by a few resident morons that the services are diverted by the Tories to their mates must be the daftest ever. Most PFI and management facility companies are owned by pension funds.

I find it depressing that grown men lack the ability to do the smallest amount of fact finding before they write into the forum with the result that it all becomes very babyish.

Regards

Mick

 

[KC Cantiaci]

Anecdotes are anecdotes. The bigger picture is that the NHS overall provides exceptionally good care. No-one is saying it's perfect, but there are no "NHS cuts", which is the purported subject of this silly thread.

Bub, with all due respect, it doesn't wash with the hundreds of thousands of individuals who live in an area where the NHS provision is poor. I'm sure they don't care that the NHS in other parts of the country offer a good service because they can't choose where they get treated. Where I live, we think the NHS is bad because the provision for our area is bad with the main hospital being in special measures since it was assessed along with all the rest after the Stafford hospital crisis. But it was bad well before the govt decided to assess it and we're talking about a hospital that covers an area with approx 400,000 people in it and isn't showing signs of improving - http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/medway-hospital-damned-as-countrys-worst-27506/

It's not the individual doctors, clinicians or nurses themselves imo, it's the system that seems to be a bureaucratic nightmare and box ticking/pass the parcel (responsibility) between GP surgeries and NHS trusts.

 

[merlin]

I find it depressing that grown men lack the ability to do the smallest amount of fact finding before they write into the forum with the result that it all becomes very babyish.

Regards

Mick

Mick

I find it sad that you seem to be so confused as you get older.

Even the most ignorant of people know that if you borrow in the short term you pay more in the long term. And I can assure you that borrowing from private investors through punitive long term lease back deals is vastly more costly than borrowing at inter governmental rates.

The only advantage of course is that the debt does not appear on your government's balance sheet and you can claim increases in health spending when in reality these are simply going to service the debt and increased admin costs.

As a politician however you get to keep your job. As a patient, you get inferior treatment. If you don't believe me simply sample health care in France, Germany the UK and the US first hand.

It's fairly simple economics from what I can see. I'm surprised given your employment history you can't apparently grasp that.

 

[Mick P]

Mick

I find it sad that you seem to be so confused as you get older.

Even the most ignorant of people know that if you borrow in the short term you pay more in the long term. And I can assure you that borrowing from private investors through punitive long term lease back deals is vastly more costly than borrowing at inter governmental rates.

The only advantage of course is that the debt does not appear on your government's balance sheet and you can claim increases in health spending when in reality these are simply going to service the debt and increased admin costs.

As a politician however you get to keep your job. As a patient, you get inferior treatment. If you don't believe me simply sample health care in France, Germany the UK and the US first hand.

It's fairly simple economics from what I can see. I'm surprised given your employment history you can't apparently grasp that.

Merlin

I am no socialist but I am at least reasonable and will not criticise for the sake of it.

Back in the nineties we suffered from a hospital shortage and PFI was the only way out. There was no money to build anything.

Brown meticulously balanced his books up until 2003 and again he could not be blamed for using PFI.

It is dead easy for a key board bandit (which is what you have become) to make numerous snide comments without coming up with serious alternatives.

If you seriously think that France and Germany sets an model for us to follow, then the answer is simple - emigrate as is your right under EU legislation.

Mick

 

[KC Cantiaci]

Mick, there was a long protracted growth period from the early 90's right though to the crash in 2008......world growth where pretty much everyone was riding high. Are you seriously telling us that there was no money? Cos I don't believe it. What I do believe is that there was money but was allocated elsewhere leaving nothing left to do the things that are necessary. This is the crux of the matter imo. To me, govts need to offer the basics and the 'would nice to have' elements come after. But we are trapped in a loop where each political party/govt seems to work from a position of self interest and vain ego where they do things to appeal to voters for the sole purpose of remaining in/getting elected into power amongst other things. PFI has become an expensive con that we are continually paying for.

 

[Mick P]

KC

If you want to build hospitals or schools etc, you have to get the money from somewhere.

PFI became popular all over the world because it was quick and convenient and despite what you think, not all that expensive.

Basically there is no typical PFI deal but usually a local authority declares that it needs say a hospital and if approved will design its own specification to cover the size/shape of the building, the equipment it requires such as X ray equipment and beds as well as a car park.

Then it goes out to tender and secures the best price.

The next stage is how to raise the finance.

Back in the "old days", it would take an average of nearly 6 years to build a hospital, mainly because the government had to release the cash on a drip feed basis. With a PFI loan, the average time went down to 2.5 years because the cash was guaranteed.

PFI was basically a consortium of Banks / Construction companies and Facility Management organisations who would agree to raise the money. They would then build and equip the hospital and also maintain it for the period of the loan which typically was 30 years.

This form of funding was initially very popular and was used by Nulab because Gordon Brown liked the fact that the building appeared on the National asset register but the loan did not appear and was effectively hidden. George Osborne has always been anti PFI.

To be fair, back in the early 2000's, Brown commissioned an independent audit of the effectiveness of PFI by the National Audit Office and they recommended it's continued use.

The main criticism of PFI is that we borrow money from the private sector and our children have to repay the debt. The counter argument has always been that the children and grandchildren will be the main users, so it is fair for them to contribute.

In essence PFI does make sense but where it fell down was that the government over did it a bit and went on a PFI spending spree between 2000 - 2008. They presumed that they could borrow large amounts of money and as time progressed, the value of the debt would reduce in real terms as inflation would nibble away at it. Most of us bought our houses on that premise and the government did the same.

In reality there as been no inflation, so the debt remains high in real terms and also most of the hospitals were not built with enough beds (blame the NHS for that) and not enough car parking spaces (blame the LA for that), so top up loans were required and it on this sort of thing where the consortiums make their money. However this was all agreed in advance at the inception of the contract.

Every contract has a termination clause where the NHS can buy itself out of the contract but it is complex and costly, so most PFIs will run their natural course.

What would solve the problem would be a long spell of inflation where the value of the debt would reduce in real terms.

Therefore, and this is just my personal opinion, PFI will remain out of favour for a while but will regain favour when the economy takes off along with inflation.

To sum up, any key board warrior can criticise PFI but despite the cost, it is responsible for the building of dozens of hospitals which without it, would not be there.

Regards

Mick

 

[sean99]

The problem is you are making a comparison with the US. They are the exception rather than the rule and a perfect example of what private health facilities end up costing government.

Of more relevance is France and Germany. Have you ever been treated in either of those countries? It's like a whole different world.

I thought France and Germany had mostly private health providers, but with publicly run insurance and tight regulation of prices ? (It's the price regulation that's missing in the US for political/bribery reasons.)

 

[KC Cantiaci]

KC

If you want to build hospitals or schools etc, you have to get the money from somewhere........

......Back in the "old days", it would take an average of nearly 6 years to build a hospital, mainly because the government had to release the cash on a drip feed basis. With a PFI loan, the average time went down to 2.5 years because the cash was guaranteed.......

Mick, I do get what happened. What I don't understand is why the powers that be chose NHS provisions to be funded via PFI? It's a necessity as is power/utility provisions....which is also being funded via private capital, some of which is foreign government state owned for Pete's sake.

Yes, we have to get the money from somewhere.... but money was coming in via the long growth period of the time whereby the UK was experiencing one of the highest growth rates year on year amongst developed countries. With this growth came increased tax receipts. So money was coming in but was being allocated and spent just as fast....faster in fact as Blair/Brown ran a deficit..... But it seems they chose to spend money on other pet projects and not on the NHS or electricity/utility supplies. The question is why? We will always need a health service the same as we will always need electricity etc. Why not let the private investors take risks in other areas of governance if we were that short of money and concentrate tax income on the necessities whereby when the economy goes into reverse, as it always does, the necessities wouldn't be so badly affected?

The long term costs of having PFI as opposed to borrowing the money directly via the markets was always going to put pressure on whoever is having to pay the bills in the long run......so ultimately, we foot the bill over time so the political parties can look good.

 

[Brian]

The problem is you are making a comparison with the US. They are the exception rather than the rule and a perfect example of what private health facilities end up costing government.

Of more relevance is France and Germany. Have you ever been treated in either of those countries? It's like a whole different world.

The childish party politics banter is utterly irrelevant IMHO. You can never have enough money. You can however use what you have wisely.

The real problem for me is that Thatcher and Major looked to the US for a business model and the introduction of PFI's have placed an ongoing burden on the tax payer that the US figures demonstrate perfectly.

Now Blair and Brown were just as guilty of following the PFI mantra so let's not get into silly politics. The real problem here is the increasing costs of leasing privately owned facilities and apparently a vastly higher percentage of total spend being wasted on administration. In the US, 33% of the budget appears to go on administration and beaurocracy. Pre Thatcher, in the UK it was only 5% and we were told the public sector was wasteful.

Now it's far higher AFAIK and the only people benefiting from these changes are the private companies who now own OUR hospitals and OUR clinics. Sadly most of the sick and ailing in our community do not have shares. When they were younger, the country actually had control over it's finances and had assets of it's own. Unfortunately successive governments appear to have sold most of those to balance the books for the electorate and to keep their jobs in the short term.

Good post, most of that one.

I agree it's not about party politics, it's also about where the money goes.

 

[sean99]

Good post, most of that one.

I agree it's not about party politics, it's also about where the money goes.

I agree - it was a good post. It seems to be a peculiarly UK and US disease that private companies are allowed to screw the treasury.

 

[Brian]

To sum up, any key board warrior can criticise PFI but despite the cost, it is responsible for the building of dozens of hospitals which without it, would not be there.

Regards

Mick

Which were needed after the previous 19 years of neglect. Now the facilities exist it's easy to forget what things were like earlier.

Still waiting on Jo and the other bloke to explain what they would have done to improve things.