This is a very interesting piece of research gummybears. The conclusion at the moment seems to be that it is not clear whether supplementation with VitD will prevent MS, or whether low levels are a consequence of MS. However as I'm pale skinned & of Scottish heritage I'm hedging my bets and off to buy some Vit D!
Gransnet forums
News & politics
NHS
(564 Posts)The situation we're in this week with the NHS, cancelled operations, frail and ill patients sitting in queues of ambulances outside A and E, etc etc.
The health secretary and PM are insisting they planned well for these pressures. Every doctor/nurse Ive heard interviewed is saying the situation is desperate and that the issue is lack of resources.
Local Authorities funds have been devastated so patients who could be discharged home if social care was available remain in hospital. People stay on trollies in A and E rather than being discharged because there isn't a Consultant available to confirm they ca go home.
Does anyone have a sensible suggestion about how this situation can be improved. I don't see how it can improve without more money, we need to train and support our medical staff.
Pretty much. The sunlight level seems to make the difference. Vit D supplementation is at a population level an incredibly cheap public health intervention so it is worth doing. MS is a bloody nasty disease 
So the genetic component depends on whether you are European or not, not whether you live in Scotland or England.
If I go due West from here, Scotland is about five miles north. If I go due North, it's nearly 80.
There is indeed, jen. Will leave this source here for now and am picking through journals for the sources I am actually looking for. I know the very research you mention does indeed exist but finding it is a PITA...
www.nhs.uk/news/neurology/low-vitamin-d-levels-linked-to-increased-multiple-sclerosis-risk/
Never knew that about MS, gummybears. I wonder if there is research into whether the number of cases reduces the more sunshine you get.
Jen - I meant gives vitamin D to pregnant women and young kids. Partly yes, it's a sunshine thing, but AFAIK, there is also evidence that inadequate Vit D levels may have a link to multiple sclerosis. Scotland has one of the highest rates of MS in the world (cause unclear).
As you say, NHS Scotland also pays for a lot of services etc that NHS E&W no longer does.
Do you mean give them vitamin D?
Is it because you are further north, and therefore lack vitamin D because less sunshine?
Or it's because your NHS is better than ours.
What does, kids get rickets?
Jen, that already happens in Scotland.
I just have to tell someone about the experience of the NHS I've had recently, in a very impoverished SE town. Where we're living now.
I don't want to name it. Not yet anyway.
We went to register as patients. The premises are modern but cramped, right in the the centre of town. There was a never-ending flow of people of all ages and colours, mostly looking very poorly, or socially deprived, or psychiatrically ill.
The 2 receptionists were almost overwhelmed.
All I needed was a repeat prescription - TG even at my age (82) I'm in a better condition than most of them.
After 2-3 weeks of filling in forms, begging and telling our hard luck story, I got to see a doctor this afternoon. a lovely elderly lady, probably from India.
I MIGHT get my prescription tomorrow.
So how the NHS is going to cope when further cuts are made I don't know.
In Dickens time it was thought that 60% of inner London children suffered from rickets. It is thought that Tiny Tim suffered from rickets.
durhamjen
Re rickets.
Why Dickensian?
I heard yesterday that the NHS is thinking of giving all pregnant women and young children vitamin D because of the rise in the number of cases of rickets.
How Dickensian can you get?
Exactly, Yorkshiregel, and just how Hunt wants it.
Where's the £350 million a week it was promised?
Surely they could use QE to get it out of the fix it was in if the will was there.
Richard Murphy is one of those experts whose name Primrose dare not state.
www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/03/06/john-redwood-admits-it-there-never-was-a-reason-for-austerity/
I think you have not worked it through Maizie. I did a quick calculation and made it just under 20% clawed back as tax. What figure did you come up with? We can compare the maths.
I have read about MMT and Thaler, Kahneman on the behavioural economics side.
If you read what I posted, I said there are plenty of explanations about QE and inflation. That's not me saying if didn't cause inflation. It didn't cause an increase in M2, which is a bit of a boring topic and nothing to do with the NHS.
Of course all of this might be deliberate so that the Government can PRIVATISE the NHS and hand it over to BIG BUSINESSES who will carry on dodging the tax man wherever they can. The Government DO NOT want the responsibility (not on my watch) of a failed NHS and they will not deal with the problem themselves, better to slope shoulders and pass the problem on to someone else.
durhamjen, one of many horror stories in the press just lately, there are many more. However, you cannot blame the ambulance drivers either. They are just as frustrated as anyone else because they are 'shared' across counties, and that means if a person has to be taken to X for specialist treatment he could find himself driving hundreds of miles. When he gets there he offloads his patient....if he can. He may have to wait in a queue! Also, while he is in this county and any emergencies occur then he has to take his ambulance to the new patient. He could be away from his station ALL DAY! The system is broken. The NHS is forced to share their ambulances and staff and there just are not enough of them. Mrs May needs to admit the fact that she will not deal with the NHS shortages because it is a hot potato and a vote loser. The whole system is at breaking point and this Government is in denial. No wonder staff are leaving in droves, they have had enough. What with having to cope with huge increases in patients, due to immigration as well but she is not admitting that either, cuts in their pay and increases in their working hours can you blame them? All they get is complaints no matter how hard or how long they work and they are exhausted.
The tax would claw back less than 20% in your 'print billions for the NHS' model.
I don't see how you reach that conclusion as every spending transaction carried out with the injected money will attract taxation in some form or another. The only time that it won't yield a return in tax is if it removed from the economy by being 'saved'. And 'saved' in a mattress under the bed at that, because most savings attract interest or dividends which are taxed.
And, your 'model' seems to be based on a constant outflow of money to the NHS with no return. Which is illogical; there is a 'return' in the tax take which is then reinvested in the NHS. The tax take is also higher because there is more money around to be taxed.
Try tracing the progress of £100 through the economy. As tax removes part of it every time it's used for a transaction the amount available for 'use' becomes smaller and smaller until it is eventually all, or nearly all (let's not forget savings) returned to the government as tax.
Although MMT has differences from it a good deal of it is classic Keynes. To call it a 'theory' is also a misnomer. It is a description of how money 'works'. And, of course, Richard Murphy is not its only exponent, he's just easy to read on the topic. There a plenty of reputable economists who support it.
It's also worth remembering that economics is not a science, it has a strong sociological element to it. How people behave with money has to be factored into economists' theory.
P.S QE did cause inflation; it caused inflation in the investment markets; which, of course, have very little connection with the 'real', day to day economy.
As far as I can see with Primrose's assertion that the government putting more money into the NHS will lead to inflation
It depends where the money from that's the issue.
The QE/inflation is answered by lots of people much better at explaining this than me. It was done to stop a huge deflation.
It is the same principle, you're quite right, except that printing the money for the NHS would 3.5 times bigger than QE and it's against a different financial backdrop and for a different reason. Investopedia has a good explanation.
The tax would claw back less than 20% in your 'print billions for the NHS' model. That's still £100billion every year.
There's a good reason why no other government in the developed world just prints money to provide services for citizens. I'm hardly radical or unique in my opinion.
As far as I can see with Primrose's assertion that the government putting more money into the NHS will lead to inflation she is missing the fact that the money put in is spent and will be taxed back by the government. Wages are taxed, businesses supplying the NHS are taxed (and the wages of their employees, paid for by producing goods/services for the NHS are taxed), any purchases made by the wage earner will be taxed by way of taxation of profit of the company that supplies the goods purchased. The only way that the money the government initially invests isn't taxed is if it is saved. So, ultimately the money returns to the government through taxation.
The question I don't think that Primrose has ever answered for me is why £345billion of quantitative easing since 2008 has not been inflationary? Same principle; government 'creating' money.
Also note that current increase in inflation is caused by devaluation of pound and resultant increase in the price of imports. Nothing to do with too much money in the economy.
durhamjen it’s about time you let your DGS know that nothing today in the UK is just like Dickens.
Give up, primrose.
You should know by now what I think about the NHS, and what I think about tax fraud.
You obviously don't think the same as me. So what!
How about 'poor people' or 'not really rich and not really poor' people who've committed tax fraud?
Tax fraud is totally different to tax evasion, which is different to tax avoidance.
I certainly don't advocate anyone doing anything illegal and think everyone should pay the taxes that they owe.
Tax avoidance is never an easy subject. I do understand that there are ways to use the current laws to your advantage. That's a problem with the law, in my opinion.
If there was a law that said everything in the supermarket was free on Tuesdays, would you change the law or moan about people who took things for free on a Tuesday and call them a thief? Personally, I'd change the law, not blame people for taking advantage of it.
You do seem to think 'the rich' are the answer to any problem with government spending but I really have no idea what you mean by 'rich'. Someone who earns above a certain amount? Someone who has a certain level of assets? It's easier for me to chat about sensibly it if I understand what you mean.
Join the conversation
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »