Stephen Hawking Is Taking Legal Action Against Jeremy Hunt
- Thread starter jackbarron
- Start date
DonQuixote99
pfm Member
I did say "Putting an additional incentive, monetary, into the mix of existing incentives might well skew behavior toward plastic-A conservation...." Should count as an answer to your question.
of course I also said "...but one must wonder what other effects might result, and whether mission accomplishment would be optimized, or not. In short, might there be negative impacts from underuse of plastic A?" And I think your unelaborated "no" must be a vast oversimplification. Otherwise, you could just cancel supply of plastic A and take utilization right to zero.
Suffolk Tony
Aim low, achieve your goals, avoid disappointment.
vuk
\o/ choose anarchy
i may be overstating things, so let me pick just one very obvious example of what you avoided answering:
did you watch the chris hedges interview? if so, what exactly is different about the UK that makes the american medicare/obamacare evidence irrelevant? if not, what is the basis of your "this is not america" flippant dismissal of such a mountain of information?
Suffolk Tony
Aim low, achieve your goals, avoid disappointment.
Is that your idea of an apology? Yes, watched it. Did I state that it was irrelevant?
vuk
\o/ choose anarchy
no it's not. i wasn't apologizing.
that's basically what every normal person would infer from the little you did say.
Tony L
Administrator
In my field (IT) I know of quite a few instances where public sector provision has been axed as part of the Tory’s idiotic ‘austerity’ agenda only for them to realise that they have lost expertise they can’t replace as no one else knows the systems so they end up re-employing the IT guys as contractors on circa £1k per day rather than say £65k per year! Pure idiocy, but sadly exactly what I expect from the Conservatives.
droodzilla
pfm Member
I can only echo what Tony L said. My experience of outsourcing IT in local government is quite negative. We end up paying more for less or the same while public money is trousered by large corporations.
In the context of the NHS I believe the privatisation of non-emergency ambulance services led, indirectly, to the death of my dad.
In the context of the NHS I believe the privatisation of non-emergency ambulance services led, indirectly, to the death of my dad.
Seeker_UK
Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans
I've also seen the same thing many times during my 20-odd years in the public sector but IME, it happened just as much under Labour as it does under the Conservatives.
DonQuixote99
pfm Member
^^^ keyboard-warrior mode!
The first question is an attack, while the second is defensive. In between is the narrowest-possible response to the content of the previous message, with the major inquiry totally ignored. The paucity of substance offers the smallest-possible scope for riposte by the warrior's 'opponent,' at the cost, of course, of not advancing the putative discussion one iota.
Mullardman
Moderately extreme...
Tony, you need to multiply that by a factor of many, to include the many other Public Service functions which the Tories have either crippled or totally eliminated on a whim.
Mullardman
Moderately extreme...
Tim, your graph above certanly seems to support your prediction about spending plans, and as far as I can see the Nuffield Foundation is a pretty politically neutral source.
However, the second part of my point was whether the money exists, or can be found. I'd say the answer to this is a pretty emphatic yes. It's just a matter of political will.
However, the second part of my point was whether the money exists, or can be found. I'd say the answer to this is a pretty emphatic yes. It's just a matter of political will.
droodzilla
pfm Member
Why wasn't that 'easy' proposition in Labour's 2017 Manifesto then?
Note:
Parties' spending in 2022/23 rounded to nearest billion.
Source:
Nuffield Trust calculations
Read more
Tim, thanks that's an excellent chart.
I'll look into the background to it later, but to save time, could you explain the difference between the projection based on the existing rate of increase in cost/demand and the projection based on long term growth? Does the latter try to take into account new treatments coming on-stream and, if so, how speculative is it? And why is the OBR projection higher than any of the others?
Finally, any idea why Labour's spending commitment flattens and declines slightly in later years? I would expect it to at least track the GDP based projection as it's essentially based on funding the NHS from greater taxation.
DonQuixote99
pfm Member
Keep in mind that the only thing close to real in any of the party lines is the proposal for the coming fiscal year. The rest is not real and is not analysis, it is pure PR.
jackbarron
Chelsea, London
Labour say they have worked out how much the NHS will cost and how they will raise the money. It is all part of their overall economic package, which Andrew Marr has tried to pick holes in with boring regularity since the last election.
You have said "The point is this; we do not have enough money and are not going to get any under any prospective future Government, of any political colour"
For you to say that no political party will provide enough money for the NHS is to put it bluntly complete BS. It is a political statement.
Labour promise:
We will guarantee and uphold the standards of service to which patients are legally entitled
under the NHS constitution.
By guaranteeing access to treatment within 18 weeks, we will take one million people o NHS waiting lists by the end of the next Parliament.
We will guarantee that patients can be seen in A&E within four hours.
By properly resourcing the NHS, Labour will stop the routine breach of safe levels of bed occupancy, and we will end mixed-sex wards.
We will deliver the Cancer Strategy for England in full by 2020, helping 2.5 million people living with cancer.
And, by properly resourcing ambulance services, we will end the scandal of slowing ambulance-response times.
Labour will focus resources on services to provide care closer to home and deliver a truly
21st century health system.
We will work towards a new model of community care that takes into account not only primary care but also social care and mental health.
We will increase funding to GP services to ensure patients can access the care they need. And we will halt pharmacy cuts and review provision to ensure all patients have access to pharmacy services, particularly in deprived or remote communities.
Labour will tackle the growing problem of rationing of services
and medicines across England, taking action to address ‘postcode lotteries’ and making sure that the quality of care you receive does not depend on which part of the country you live in. We will ensure all NHS patients get fast access to the most e ective new drugs and treatments, and insist on value-for-money agreements with pharmaceutical companies.
To make sure that autistic people
are able to access the whole of
their community and to put an end to social isolation, Labour will set
the ambition to make our country autism-friendly. We will ensure that everyone with a long-term condition, such as those with diabetes, will have the right to a specialised care plan, and access to condition-management education.
Labour said more Tim, but I guess you that. You say Jeremy Hunt is a nice bloke and the Tories are spending more on health care than anybody before, but this completely masks what has been going on. Ever more people are using the NHS and this together with inflation means not enough money in real terms has been put into health since the Tories got into power.
One example is nurses and many health workers haven't had a proper pay rise for years. Their incomes have been shrinking in real terms since 2010. This is all down to a political decision made by the Tories and their Lib-Dem idiot children in the Coalition.
Jack
Fatmarley
"It appears my intelligence circuits have melted"
It's amazing how many Intelligent people believe It though. My sister with her big house and posh cars said to me one day (In a patronizing tone) "Where do you think the money's going to come from Matthew"
As long as people have disposable Income, then there's spare money for the NHS.
jackbarron
Chelsea, London
Tim Jones
pfm Member
Well, this is my issue with threads like these. In all fairness, I should not have made a political point, but that nothwithstanding, it seems to me that at least one subsequent contributor has either failed to digest the content of my first (long, and reasonably considered) post, or is just unwilling to do so because they would prefer to flaunt their political feathers.
It's not about you Jack, for all your predictable and self-indulgent cant. It's about the patients.
If you genuinely believe a statement as entirely fatuous as 'as long as people have disposable income, then there's spare money for the NHS' then you've essentially disappeared up your own fundament.
We have not lived within a mode of the relations of production over the previous seven decades where full state-control of those means has had to be necessary to provide for an economically socialised form of medicine. There is no reason to think we need to do so now. But we do need the kind of honest and relatively transparent debate where there is some kind of relationship between inputs and outputs.
If you are not capable of understanding that, or alternatively dismiss anyone who thinks it's an issue as ZOMG PRIVATISING TORY SCUM, then we're probably on a hiding to nothing, not that that's predictable in any way in these kind of PFM threads.
It's not about you Jack, for all your predictable and self-indulgent cant. It's about the patients.
If you genuinely believe a statement as entirely fatuous as 'as long as people have disposable income, then there's spare money for the NHS' then you've essentially disappeared up your own fundament.
We have not lived within a mode of the relations of production over the previous seven decades where full state-control of those means has had to be necessary to provide for an economically socialised form of medicine. There is no reason to think we need to do so now. But we do need the kind of honest and relatively transparent debate where there is some kind of relationship between inputs and outputs.
If you are not capable of understanding that, or alternatively dismiss anyone who thinks it's an issue as ZOMG PRIVATISING TORY SCUM, then we're probably on a hiding to nothing, not that that's predictable in any way in these kind of PFM threads.
Seanm
pfm Member
Speaking for myself, I’m up for a transparent debate about the relationship between inputs and outputs.
But we have to start from a position that acknowledges that PRIVATISING TORY SCUM really are Tory privatising scum.
Otherwise it’s bound to look like a smoke-blowing exercise by interested parties.
But we have to start from a position that acknowledges that PRIVATISING TORY SCUM really are Tory privatising scum.
Otherwise it’s bound to look like a smoke-blowing exercise by interested parties.