The Tories are in sight of their goal aren’t they?

Casdon

MaizieD

It matters because of competing demands from other important issues, like education for example MaizieD.

You're not understanding the economics of it, are you Casdon? The state doesn't have a finite amount of money, it can spend whatever it needs. The only real limit it has is the availability of resources. There is o need for one sector to compete for money with another.

I do understand the economics of it MaizieD, I’ve followed your posts about it for a while. Do you understand how bottomless the demand for health is though?

But if the state is able to fund that demand and the resources are available to deal with it why should we be worried about it?

A shortage of actual resources would be a different matter. But money is always there. As growstuff says, the refusal to spend it is purely ideological.

Of course it means higher taxes, which are anathema to some.

NO IT DOESN'T.

I'm just wasting my time attempting to explain how state funding actually works, aren't I?

I assume that people just see my name on a longish post and go straight past without reading it.

www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/sites/bartlett_public_purpose/files/the_self-financing_state_an_institutional_analysis_of_government_expenditure_revenue_collection_and_debt_issuance_operations_in_the_united_kingdom.pdf

gimms.org.uk/2022/11/26/spending-chains-sankey-diagrams/#_ftn8

gimms.org.uk/2019/02/10/uk-government-spending-taxation-bank-lending/

MaizieD

^It matters because of competing demands from other important issues, like education for example MaizieD.^

You're not understanding the economics of it, are you Casdon? The state doesn't have a finite amount of money, it can spend whatever it needs. The only real limit it has is the availability of resources. There is o need for one sector to compete for money with another.

The state doesn't have a finite budget, but the NHS does.

The state could choose to give the NHS more money, but it won't and that's ideological.

MaizieD

^It matters because of competing demands from other important issues, like education for example MaizieD.^

You're not understanding the economics of it, are you Casdon? The state doesn't have a finite amount of money, it can spend whatever it needs. The only real limit it has is the availability of resources. There is o need for one sector to compete for money with another.

I do understand the economics of it MaizieD, I’ve followed your posts about it for a while. Do you understand how bottomless the demand for health is though?

It is actually really difficult to get, even if you meet the criteria. There are lots of us who have first hand experience of it too. What would have happened in the past if people needed ongoing care? they'd have had district nurse support (amongst other care outcomes - whichever suitable) - which would work well. It is as though the long term outcomes of cuts to services have come to fruition. It is frightening to those of us have family members with long term conditions and has been for a while.

I'm not disagreeing with you Casdon. It's a debate we have to have. Of course, everybody wants the best for themselves. If I needed constant healthcare and it were possible to provide it at home, that's what I'd want. My sisters and I paid for it for the last few weeks of my mother's life. However, it wouldn't have been possible for months or years, and I don't think the cost to the NHS could have been justified.

Every so often there's a campaign in the media to fund very expensive cancer drugs or treatments. If I were the patient with a terminal condition, I might want to try them, but the NHS currently has a limited budget and it's supposed to be a national health service, trying its best to treat as many people as possible. The cost of some of these drugs would pay for two or three extra nurses, who could treat far more people. I think there needs to be an honest debate about how far we go. It's a sad fact that some people resent paying taxes so that more people can benefit from good treatment.

It matters because of competing demands from other important issues, like education for example MaizieD.

You're not understanding the economics of it, are you Casdon? The state doesn't have a finite amount of money, it can spend whatever it needs. The only real limit it has is the availability of resources. There is o need for one sector to compete for money with another.

JaneJudge

Casdon, medical professionals already make those decisions. Before people receive treatment it goes to panel and professionals surrounding that person make decisions ethically based on the patients best interests and potential outcome. There are lots of examples of how with holding care will cause more expensive long term problems.

I know JaneJudge. I was peripherally involved with the Independent Patient Funding Request for drugs and therapeutics process for a while in my job. There’s a separate panel approval process for Continuing Healthcare applications, but fundamentally it is uncapped, if somebody meets the criteria the funding is granted - it’s one of the biggest cost pressures on Health.

Casdon, medical professionals already make those decisions. Before people receive treatment it goes to panel and professionals surrounding that person make decisions ethically based on the patients best interests and potential outcome. There are lots of examples of how with holding care will cause more expensive long term problems.

volver

ps - I'm sorry to have taken this off topic. I won't post any more about engineers.

your specialist subject

growstuff

Casdon Where would you draw the line? Goodness knows how much the NHS has spent on my cancer treatment or the follow up treatment over the next few years, my heart attack or diabetes treatment for over 30 years. I had bacterial meningitis as a child and was in hospital for weeks. Both my children were born by Caesarian, which costs more than natural childbirth.

I'm not much use to anybody economically, so it doesn't make economic sense to keep me alive.

I don’t know where I’d draw the line, it needs much weightier minds than mine to debate and decide. I don’t believe that life saving or life prolonging treatment should be withheld from anybody, but I do think all the quality of life issues should be fully discussed with them and their families, and I don’t think that’s always the case. I think there will have to be a line drawn regarding clinical care at home because the costs can be extortionate - so for example, one complex care case could be the same cost as 50 people being supported at home with carers. What I’m quite sure of is that the potential costs will be bottomless, so lines have to be drawn - and it’s easier to do that with lower level procedures and treatments. IVF is a good example of where the wrestling between couples’ desire to have a child and the cost of giving them chances to do so are ‘managed’ now, and how complex that is.

ps - I'm sorry to have taken this off topic. I won't post any more about engineers.

Which is why medical degrees require a proportion of the time to be spent in hospitals doing clinical practice.
Unfortunately most engineering degrees don't do this (partly because we no longer have the manufacturing base to accommodate them)

This is a quote from your original post on this topic. It draws a link between engineering degrees not having a practical element and the UK not having a manufacturing base any more. That is an incorrect assumption. The majority of engineers I have met and know personally didn't need manufacturing base because that is irrelevant to their subject and occupation.

Also, in this discussion we're skipping between English Universities and British manufacturing. Not all British engineers come from English Universities.

volver

^I think you are confusing major engineering work with technology and design, both of which can be done theoretically unlike practical engineering work on major infrastructure.^

Lol. No I'm not. But never mind. One of the institutions DH lectured in was an école supérieur in France. He's a C. Eng. too. How do people who design and build bridges, for instance, get experience on the shop floor of manufacturing companies? Reinforcing the idea that engineering has something to do with manufacturing is not on in this day and age, in my opinion.

There are now many graduates who have no practical experience. The best University courses and some Apprenticeships offer both practical and theoretical training like the French do. Unfortunately a lot of English University engineering courses have no such requirement. The decline of British manufacturing and British engineering expertise trace parallel courses and understanding what was lost is perhaps necessary to plan for a better future.

But the assertion that engineering has no connection at all with manufacturing is in any case totally wrong

The manufacturing sector makes a substantial economic contribution, accounting for
43.5% of the turnover generated by engineering enterprises in the UK.
• 27.0% of the 2.67 million registered enterprises in the UK in 2018 fell within the
engineering footprint.
• Of the 721,940 engineering enterprises in the UK in 2018, the largest proportions were
in information and communication (29.4%), construction (27.3%) and manufacturing
(18.6%)
www.engineeringuk.com/media/156198/key-facts-figures-2019-final-20190627.pdf

JaneJudge

I'm sure many of us on these threads have private healthcare insurance through our jobs or spouses jobs too and haven;t felt the need to think we deserve healthcare whilst others less fortunate do not. It doesn't take much imagination at all to be open minded and compassionate.

Correct.
We'd far rather be the ones paying in than receiving. The word "deserving" or "entitled," doesn't enter into it.

Yes, they would.

And if everyone, especially those who think that private healthcare is a human right (or something), thought we should all support each other, we'd have a better society.

True, Volver, goid point, but then wouldn't all the test and investigations I've had cost the public sector ££ thousands? Far far more than my small amount?

Just offering an alternative. Don't give up any of those things, just pay the money you already pay for healthcare into a fund that helps everybody.

I thought it was obvious

Of course it means higher taxes, which are anathema to some.

I'm sure many of us on these threads have private healthcare insurance through our jobs or spouses jobs too and haven;t felt the need to think we deserve healthcare whilst others less fortunate do not. It doesn't take much imagination at all to be open minded and compassionate.

So you haven't answered my questions, just got personal?

Joseanne

I pay for private healthcare. What do you suggest I go without in order to pay for other people who can't afford to pay? Maybe my household insurance so I am no longer protected from fire or flood? Or maybe my car insurance so that if my car is a write off I can no longer get to work or take my DGCs to school? Or maybe my sacks of dog food so my pet starves?

You could pay the amount you pay for private healthcare into the public system?

Joseanne

I pay for private healthcare. What do you suggest I go without in order to pay for other people who can't afford to pay? Maybe my household insurance so I am no longer protected from fire or flood? Or maybe my car insurance so that if my car is a write off I can no longer get to work or take my DGCs to school? Or maybe my sacks of dog food so my pet starves?

That attitude doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

I pay for private healthcare. What do you suggest I go without in order to pay for other people who can't afford to pay? Maybe my household insurance so I am no longer protected from fire or flood? Or maybe my car insurance so that if my car is a write off I can no longer get to work or take my DGCs to school? Or maybe my sacks of dog food so my pet starves?

Casdon Where would you draw the line? Goodness knows how much the NHS has spent on my cancer treatment or the follow up treatment over the next few years, my heart attack or diabetes treatment for over 30 years. I had bacterial meningitis as a child and was in hospital for weeks. Both my children were born by Caesarian, which costs more than natural childbirth.

I'm not much use to anybody economically, so it doesn't make economic sense to keep me alive.

I think you are confusing major engineering work with technology and design, both of which can be done theoretically unlike practical engineering work on major infrastructure.

Lol. No I'm not. But never mind. One of the institutions DH lectured in was an école supérieur in France. He's a C. Eng. too. How do people who design and build bridges, for instance, get experience on the shop floor of manufacturing companies? Reinforcing the idea that engineering has something to do with manufacturing is not on in this day and age, in my opinion.