Looks like it could soon be 'RIP the NHS'?

Yes, I know it does. It also spends a great deal more on healthcare.

Percentage of GDP spent on healthcare - UK 8.46%/France 10.95%
Current expenditure per capita - UK $3235/France $4124
Number of physicians per 1000 - UK 2.8/France 3.3
Number of hospital beds per 1000 - UK 2.8/France 6.3

www.nhsconfed.org/resources/key-statistics-on-the-nhs

I think the statistics speak for themselves. France spends more and has a better service.

Not forgetting that the new reorganisation into STPs is predicated on saving another £22 billion.

Is the the third or fourth topdown reorganisation that was never going to happen under a Tory government?

Exactly, daphne. If obie wants us to be number one, perhaps our government should spend as much on the health service as the French one does.

Also in France (almost) everyone has a top-up insurance to pay 30% of the cost. This costs us about 150€ a month. The cost rises with age but the companies cannot take pre-existing conditions into account. Treatment for serious illnesses like cancer and heart attack is funded at 100%.

Also, when this government came in, there were only 5% of trusts in deficit; now there are nearly 65%. Shows there is something wrong with the funding there.

King's Fund comparison shows that the French pay 2.25% privately into the health service; we pay 1.5%. So within that 2.5% difference, only some of it is in private finance, not all.
The French still pay more than we do excluding the insurance.

Yes but private insurance is a choice in the UK. You can choose not to have top-up insurance here but then you have to pay 30% yourself. Hospital treatment, physio, xrays and tests etc. The NI equivalent is very high for employers as well. The top-up insurance doesn't buy private treatment, just 30% of the ordinary provision.

I suspect the 2.25% is not referring to top-up insurance, but to treatment in private clinics. Not the same thing at all.

I do want us to be no.1. Cancer survival rates are poor compared to Europe.
We fare badly regarding heart attacks compared to France as well[though that could be more to do with diet]

I don't think you can look at the NHS in isolation without taking into account what has been happening in our society over the last few years, for which our government is responsible. We live in a rich country but there is a huge and growing disparity between the richest and poorest, which in turn causes serious health inequalities. An increasingly elderly population means increased health spending but additionally social and economic disadvantages lead to poor health. These health inequalities are well documented and treating illnesses associated with such health inequalities costs an estimated 5.5 billion a year (N.I.C.E). I don't believe the government has any intention of addressing these problems but will continue as usual with short term fixes, with a long term goal of persuading us that some sort of private insurance is the only way to go.

In that case, obie, we need to spend more money on the NHS.

Has anyone else had a petition from AgeUK about the Attendance Allowance?
Something else that is going to rely on councils having money to pay, despite the fact that they have had their money cut by the government.
Another postcode lottery.

Theresa May needs to be continually reminded of her words during her first speech after becoming PM:

"That means fighting against the burning injustice that, if you’re born poor, you will die on average 9 years earlier than others."

www.gov.uk/government/speeches/statement-from-the-new-prime-minister-theresa-may

Strangely enough, NHS never passed her lips in that speech. I wonder why not!

Perhaps she thinks that raising standards of living, which I understand is what she wants to do for poorer people*, is what will make the difference.

* I think one can believe that whether or not one's political outlook is aligned with hers.

"record levels of funding on the NHS", she has just said.

fullfact.org/health/spending-english-nhs/

This just shows how you can use any figures you want to make that claim.

In November there is going to be a cap on benefits, making another half million children at risk of homelessness.
There is going to be a new pay-to-stay for people in social housing if they earn more than £40,000 per household in London, and £31,000 outside London.

www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2016/aug/31/pay-to-stay-social-housing-hit-low-earners

Really raising standards of living....

Anyone who wants to lobby at the Tory conference will be able to on payment of £3000+.
That's to have lunch with Theresa May. I thought she wanted to be different to Cameron.

So you're still supporting the junior doctors' strike are you, durhamjen?

Do you only support democratic voting when it suits you, as in Brexit?
BMA junior doctors had a democratic vote and voted to strike because of the imposition of the new contract.

fullfact.org/health/junior-doctors-pay-short-introduction-dispute/

I asked a simple question, I didn't give an opinion so I don't know what relevance your first sentence has.

Ana asked you DJ if you still supported the junior doctors strike. The answer is 'yes, no or maybe' I'd gave thought.

I read an interesting article the other day that increased my sympathy for the junior doctors' case (being moved around too much, lack of team support), but I also see what the government is trying to do (improve weekend care because people treated, or not treated, as the case may be, at weekends fare less well than those threated during the week) as reasonable.

As one might expect, it's a complex issue. Neither side is all right or all wrong.

Off to the hospital now. I expect I'll be seen by a very tired junior doctor.

Junior docs have always had to work long hours. It's not a new thing caused by the current government.

Going by anecdotal experiences locally (West Midlands), people are being offered appointments on both days at weekends. As far as I'm aware, this appears to be widespread and has been for some time. So the assumption must be that staff at all grades are already rostered over seven days, which is what HMG says it wants. As I have remarked on another thread a while ago, this appears to boil down to remuneration.