Monday, February 19, 2007
Doctors starting to get it?
The Times gives us a report about disillusioned doctors. It certainly shows us the cracks appearing in our socialist health system, and perhaps at last, people such as doctors are starting to realise that taxation and socialism can't solve problems.
The opinions expressed read as a damning summation of the effectiveness of ZaNuLabour's health "policy":
More than half of respondents (56 per cent) said that there had been no improvement in the NHS since 2002.... Only 27 per cent thought there had been.
"...(72 per cent) did not believe that the extra money had been well spent, while 11 per cent said that it had. Similar views were held on the quality of care: 72 per cent said that there had been no improvement; 15 per cent said that there had been."
"...79 per cent of respondents doubted that the highest standards expected of the NHS could be sustained through taxation alone after 2008, when the huge annual increases in funding will drop off."
This last quote read as some sort of sick (pardon the pun) joke: "highest standards ... could be sustained" like we have the highest standards now?
There is also concern about: "... what will happen after 2008, when the rate of increased funding is due to end." Well of course in theory it shouldn't matter as the increase in funding hasn't prompted any improvement, but in reality, all those extra turkeys employed by the NHS with the funding increase will still need feeding, it won't be the turkeys that go after 2008, but patient care, hospital wards and beds.
Apparently doctors still support the NHS in principle, but what will it take for them to wake up and think a little? What private health care provider would have such a turkey army? What costs more? Profits to shareholders? Or people employed to remain off the unemployment figures?
Remember doctors, the turkey army is only possible: "Thanks to the unique way the NHS is funded." It's time to admit failure and move away from this outdated and ineffective socialist funding model. Let's be rid of this burden once and for all.
The opinions expressed read as a damning summation of the effectiveness of ZaNuLabour's health "policy":
More than half of respondents (56 per cent) said that there had been no improvement in the NHS since 2002.... Only 27 per cent thought there had been.
"...(72 per cent) did not believe that the extra money had been well spent, while 11 per cent said that it had. Similar views were held on the quality of care: 72 per cent said that there had been no improvement; 15 per cent said that there had been."
"...79 per cent of respondents doubted that the highest standards expected of the NHS could be sustained through taxation alone after 2008, when the huge annual increases in funding will drop off."
This last quote read as some sort of sick (pardon the pun) joke: "highest standards ... could be sustained" like we have the highest standards now?
There is also concern about: "... what will happen after 2008, when the rate of increased funding is due to end." Well of course in theory it shouldn't matter as the increase in funding hasn't prompted any improvement, but in reality, all those extra turkeys employed by the NHS with the funding increase will still need feeding, it won't be the turkeys that go after 2008, but patient care, hospital wards and beds.
Apparently doctors still support the NHS in principle, but what will it take for them to wake up and think a little? What private health care provider would have such a turkey army? What costs more? Profits to shareholders? Or people employed to remain off the unemployment figures?
Remember doctors, the turkey army is only possible: "Thanks to the unique way the NHS is funded." It's time to admit failure and move away from this outdated and ineffective socialist funding model. Let's be rid of this burden once and for all.
Tags: NHS, tax, socialism, freedom
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Friday, February 09, 2007
NHS moves to India
The Times reports on the latest set of jobs to go to India, a batch of accountancy ones from the NHS.
Whilst of course I welcome anything that might save the taxpayer money, I feel that a far more radical approach is needed. Why bother exporting jobs as such and why not just export the patients, the private hospitals in India are famed for their cleanliness and care, of course labour being much cheaper there, they also offer excellent value for money. There would I'm sure be quite a saving, not to mention the benefits to our patients, no waiting lists, no months of pain. They'd be further savings too in increased productivity and decreased benefit payments.
Of course it couldn't be used for everything, but think how much more beneficial it would be for many routine procedures. Anyway even without the NHS involvement, increased numbers of UK citizens are privately taking this option, but of course they still have to pay for the NHS as well.
The "money" quote on the present scheme comes from John Hutton the Health Minister: “The joint venture will generate significant cost savings - enough to pay for the annual salaries of 3,000 GPs or 12,000 nurses”. Notice the phrasing, why doesn't he express it in tax terms? He should say, the cost savings will result in a penny decrease in income tax, but of course it won't, and indeed this is why ultimately the move is just irrelevant. It's irrelevant because it won't increase the standard, so desperately needing increase, in patient care, and failing that, it won't result in any money going back to the taxpayer. Instead of the money being wasted on NHS accountants, it'll be wasted on some other turkey.
Whilst of course I welcome anything that might save the taxpayer money, I feel that a far more radical approach is needed. Why bother exporting jobs as such and why not just export the patients, the private hospitals in India are famed for their cleanliness and care, of course labour being much cheaper there, they also offer excellent value for money. There would I'm sure be quite a saving, not to mention the benefits to our patients, no waiting lists, no months of pain. They'd be further savings too in increased productivity and decreased benefit payments.
Of course it couldn't be used for everything, but think how much more beneficial it would be for many routine procedures. Anyway even without the NHS involvement, increased numbers of UK citizens are privately taking this option, but of course they still have to pay for the NHS as well.
The "money" quote on the present scheme comes from John Hutton the Health Minister: “The joint venture will generate significant cost savings - enough to pay for the annual salaries of 3,000 GPs or 12,000 nurses”. Notice the phrasing, why doesn't he express it in tax terms? He should say, the cost savings will result in a penny decrease in income tax, but of course it won't, and indeed this is why ultimately the move is just irrelevant. It's irrelevant because it won't increase the standard, so desperately needing increase, in patient care, and failing that, it won't result in any money going back to the taxpayer. Instead of the money being wasted on NHS accountants, it'll be wasted on some other turkey.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Sick
The Daily Mail on Saturday tells us of NHS "patients" being offered the option to pay for their operation and thereby "jump the queue" and receive treatment.
Of course the "journalist" manages to miss an important point. The treatments have already been paid for, either by the patients themselves or others ("from each according to his means to each according to his needs")in the form of National Insurance (Insurance being misleading as the only side of the bargain is payment of the premium). So by asking for another payment, note there's no suggestion of a refund for the premiums paid, the poor people are being asked to pay twice for the same thing.
All of us who pay the National Insurance tax have all paid for these operations, now they cannot happen, we should all get a refund.
Imagine if this was a private company, taking payments in return for healthcare, then when people fell ill, expecting them to pay for treatment, they'd be an outcry. We'd have pictures showing directors houses and cars, we'd have calls for legislation to "protect" the public, every leftie going would be denouncing capitalism, directors salaries and complaining of how people get conned, and how others profit from their misfortune, the reality is that if you have the money and are in pain, you'll be very tempted to give it to the NHS.
I see the NHS as a huge gravy train, not for the majority of staff perhaps, but those at the top are bigger swindlers and robbers than many others. There's been a programme on BBC2 showing some self-made millionaire trying to get Rotherham hospital running efficiently; the chief executive of the hospital (for me) is no manager, but no fool either, he produces government figures and is probably classed as good at his job, ultimately I think he must know the hospital could be run better, I also think he knows he'll get no credit for doing so, just a lot of hassle, but does he resign? Does he forego his (judging from his house and car) generous salary? Yet (for me) he knows as much as the director of a company that continues trading with inevitable bankruptcy that people are being fleeced.
Years ago, when the worker was portrayed as slaving away for the capitalist, at least the capitalist provided something (capital). Now the worker slaves away for the apparatchik - who waxes fat on the food of the poor, but the apparatchik is supposed to work for the people, the reality is he does nothing, but produce figures and take the salary. What a sick system.
Of course the "journalist" manages to miss an important point. The treatments have already been paid for, either by the patients themselves or others ("from each according to his means to each according to his needs")in the form of National Insurance (Insurance being misleading as the only side of the bargain is payment of the premium). So by asking for another payment, note there's no suggestion of a refund for the premiums paid, the poor people are being asked to pay twice for the same thing.
All of us who pay the National Insurance tax have all paid for these operations, now they cannot happen, we should all get a refund.
Imagine if this was a private company, taking payments in return for healthcare, then when people fell ill, expecting them to pay for treatment, they'd be an outcry. We'd have pictures showing directors houses and cars, we'd have calls for legislation to "protect" the public, every leftie going would be denouncing capitalism, directors salaries and complaining of how people get conned, and how others profit from their misfortune, the reality is that if you have the money and are in pain, you'll be very tempted to give it to the NHS.
I see the NHS as a huge gravy train, not for the majority of staff perhaps, but those at the top are bigger swindlers and robbers than many others. There's been a programme on BBC2 showing some self-made millionaire trying to get Rotherham hospital running efficiently; the chief executive of the hospital (for me) is no manager, but no fool either, he produces government figures and is probably classed as good at his job, ultimately I think he must know the hospital could be run better, I also think he knows he'll get no credit for doing so, just a lot of hassle, but does he resign? Does he forego his (judging from his house and car) generous salary? Yet (for me) he knows as much as the director of a company that continues trading with inevitable bankruptcy that people are being fleeced.
Years ago, when the worker was portrayed as slaving away for the capitalist, at least the capitalist provided something (capital). Now the worker slaves away for the apparatchik - who waxes fat on the food of the poor, but the apparatchik is supposed to work for the people, the reality is he does nothing, but produce figures and take the salary. What a sick system.
Tags: NHS, state apparatchiks, statism, welfare state
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: NHS, state apparatchiks, statism, welfare state
Thursday, January 04, 2007
The Envy Of The World
The Times reports here on the latest NHS "envy of the world" [that no one tries to emulate] crisis.
According to the report, with three months until the financial year end, it has simply "run out of money". As a result, people are being turned away for various treatments etc.
The Times report is strong on detail, but surprisingly short on analysis. Imagine if you will, a private company, taking money off people in return for providing health care; then when people needed care, finding they were being turned away. Do you think the piece would have been short on analysis then?
We'd have had pictures showing directors cars and mansions; can we see some pictures of top NHS administrators' houses and cars? We'd have had comment and opinion telling us that legislation was needed to protect people from such scams. Yet that would have been a voluntary scheme like Farepack, who will protect us from the enforced payment of taxes and national insurance?
We'd have had analysis of why the system was wrong and how it could be changed. Yet for some strange reason, the state is immune from journalistic enquiry, there's no call to change the system, no mention of people having paid in advance for this health care, the state now welching on its promise and no redress available.
That the NHS is seriously up the creek doesn't surprise me, in effect their finances are out by a whole quarter. What is just as important and exceedingly pathetic is how journalists kow-tow to statist systems and never, no matter what happens, consider that perhaps it's time the state did less.
It's time to put our hands up, the NHS project is too big, too vast and costs too much, and this crisis proves that it is doomed to ultimate failure. Let's discuss and implement an exit strategy, before it bankrupts the whole country.
According to the report, with three months until the financial year end, it has simply "run out of money". As a result, people are being turned away for various treatments etc.
The Times report is strong on detail, but surprisingly short on analysis. Imagine if you will, a private company, taking money off people in return for providing health care; then when people needed care, finding they were being turned away. Do you think the piece would have been short on analysis then?
We'd have had pictures showing directors cars and mansions; can we see some pictures of top NHS administrators' houses and cars? We'd have had comment and opinion telling us that legislation was needed to protect people from such scams. Yet that would have been a voluntary scheme like Farepack, who will protect us from the enforced payment of taxes and national insurance?
We'd have had analysis of why the system was wrong and how it could be changed. Yet for some strange reason, the state is immune from journalistic enquiry, there's no call to change the system, no mention of people having paid in advance for this health care, the state now welching on its promise and no redress available.
That the NHS is seriously up the creek doesn't surprise me, in effect their finances are out by a whole quarter. What is just as important and exceedingly pathetic is how journalists kow-tow to statist systems and never, no matter what happens, consider that perhaps it's time the state did less.
It's time to put our hands up, the NHS project is too big, too vast and costs too much, and this crisis proves that it is doomed to ultimate failure. Let's discuss and implement an exit strategy, before it bankrupts the whole country.
