Public Sector Strikes

[opel80uk]

Woooh, this is going way off tangent. If you think many people don't value the NHS enough, then make a thread.

At no point did I imply or say that people don't value the NHS. My response was to a direct quote that said we need to cut the numbers of public sector workers. I was merely pointing out that cutting the public sector will have repercussions on public services and as I work in the NHS and know most about that, I used it as an example. I could have found reports about cuts in the council and the knock on effect that they had, but I wouldn't have known as much about it. You seemed perfectly happy to let the thread run when at points it became, for some, a thread on whether or not Public Sector workers are lazy, or was that ok because it kept in line with the first posts overall tone?

And this is often the problem, I tried to describe it by showing how the kind of people that complain GSK make profits (whilst also producing things that save lifes) will ignore the insain amount of profit a firm like apple makes.

and the rising costs are simply more than we can easily take.

One of the main, if not THE main reason we have rising costs in healthcare is due to the rising cost of drugs . Last year GSK made 1.9Bn profit, and you have the audacity to question those who complain about their profit margins? And that's not going into how drug companies have held back drug development by refusing to work with other companies and state based agencies and share their knowledge and research to develop better drugs at a quicker pace, all in the name of maximising their potential profits. Next you'll be telling me that they needed that margin of profit to invest in other drugs, so it was in our interests really.

We want a balanced life, and as such that means there will be pain, suffering, and all sorts of other horrible easily curable issues. We're not going to cure em.

That maybe so, but it doesn't mean that people shouldn't be asking why, if they are easily curable, are they not being?

As such I can't help but feel you think the NHS is more special than the rest of us do.

I think's that probably clear. I would also suggest that your statement that you are a top 10% earner, and Barrichello's statement that he and his family have private healthcare goes someway to explaining to me why you feel how you feel, as being someone who has travelled a lot, and seen varying different standards of healthcare, I find it incomprehensible that anyone would not think that the costs of keeping the NHS (and their staff) are not worth paying, especially when most independent studies show that the actual cost of, in this case pensions, is not unfordable. But you tend to find the biggest criticism of the catch all 'public sector' are from people that can afford to use it as least as possible. Private healthcare, living in expensive, crime less areas, private schooling for the kids (or at least the best state schools), that's great if you can afford it, but there is a whole section of society out there who can't, and need that safety net. There will always be people like you, bemoaning and criticising how much these services are costing you as an individual, and that's your right. But don't be surprised when you find there are others who will defend those services to the hilt.

I think it has tremendos room for improvement and the rising costs are simply more than we can easily take..

I've lost count of the times I've heard that by someone, and then when pressed on it, the said person is found to not really know anything about the NHS, nor any ideas as to how improvements could be made, but was something they read in the telegraph. Perhaps, in another thread, you could list what steps could be taken that would use up this tremendous room for improvement, cutting costs while your at it?

That is the issue. The fairest way to solve it is the cruelty and brilliance of the free market. Yes its not perfect, but its much better than the childish games we are currently seeing.

The 'Cruelty' of the free market is what resulted in that 10 year old kid dying somewhere in some other part of the world for the want of clean water. The 'brilliance' is that someone, somewhere, made some profit out of it. And you think we can use that as a fair way to resolve anything.

[badass]

You may well get what you wish for...........

......... Hope you, Barichello and all your families and friends are fortunate enough and rich enough to have BUPA cover though........ or if not, don't get sick.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13801051

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14034835

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...cameron-pledge

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...times-increase

You do realise that a free to all at the point of need health service could be run by private companies that don't waste £30 billion on central management alone, don't you.
The NHS is such an unbelievable mess full of wastage and incompetence that it is simply not fixable.
If you don't think that health can be run privately, just take a look at the French system. It's not perfect but it's a lot better because they don't insist on the whole thing being run top to bottom by public servants. It's also fairer because those that can afford it contribute towards the cost of care whilst those that cannot have their costs paid by their government.
From discussions with policemen and others who have to deal with the fallout, social services are as bad or worse.

[badass]

One of the main, if not THE main reason we have rising costs in healthcare is due to the rising cost of drugs . Last year GSK made 1.9Bn profit, and you have the audacity to question those who complain about their profit margins?

Do you not understand what:
Profit is
Profit margins are
Research and development costs

?

GSK are a huge company.
Their margins must be large to fund their huge R&D cost.

Have you ever heard the phrase "The first pill costs a billion pounds"

[opel80uk]

Do you not understand what:
Profit is
Profit margins are
Research and development costs

?

GSK are a huge company.
Their margins must be large to fund their huge R&D cost.

Have you ever heard the phrase "The first pill costs a billion pounds"

Actually, it's a billion dollars. That figure was first quoted in the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development health journal, which is primarily funded by drug companies. And you're silly enough to call the BBC's imparrtiality into question?

There is an excellent, factual based, article on the Al Jeezera website recently published about drug companies (where I got the above info from). Well worth a read, but it does kinda shred your argument to ribbons, if your interested. Alternatively, you could just pick up the Telegraph again.......

[opel80uk]

You do realise that a free to all at the point of need health service could be run by private companies that don't waste £30 billion on central management alone, don't you.
The NHS is such an unbelievable mess full of wastage and incompetence that it is simply not fixable.
If you don't think that health can be run privately, just take a look at the French system. It's not perfect but it's a lot better because they don't insist on the whole thing being run top to bottom by public servants. It's also fairer because those that can afford it contribute towards the cost of care whilst those that cannot have their costs paid by their government.
From discussions with policemen and others who have to deal with the fallout, social services are as bad or worse.

You are either lying, in the mistaken hope that I don't know about it, or don't actually know what you are talking about. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go for the latter. The French system is NOT free at point of need. In France, you pay your taxes and then when you use a service you are charged the total amount for it, which you pay. Then you get 70-85% of it back as a reimbursement form the state, depending on your salary. You can be seen by a private hospital if you wish, but you only get reimbursed 70-85% of the cost of treatment at a Public hospital. They still have central management costs, like everywhere else.

It is an excellent standard, but it is very expensive too and France had a deficit of nearly 15BnEuros last year, and is spending 12% of GDP on health.

So all in all, France probably wasn't the best example to give, was it?

[badass]

[QUOTE=opel80uk;2098987]

Do you not understand what:
Profit is
Profit margins are
Research and development costs

?

GSK are a huge company.
Their margins must be large to fund their huge R&D cost.



Actually, it's a billion dollars. That figure was first quoted in the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development health journal, which is primarily funded by drug companies. And you're silly enough to call the BBC's imparrtiality into question?

Putting words in my mouth now about the BBC? The first pill costs a billion dollars is just to make a point. GSK does not make a lot of money for a company of its size. That you cannot argue when you compare them to companies of similar size and especially when you compare them to companies with a similar market cap.

There is an excellent, factual based, article on the Al Jeezera website recently published about drug companies (where I got the above info from). Well worth a read, but it does kinda shred your argument to ribbons, if your interested. Alternatively, you could just pick up the Telegraph again.......

You are either lying, in the mistaken hope that I don't know about it, or don't actually know what you are talking about. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go for the latter. The French system is NOT free at point of need. In France, you pay your taxes and then when you use a service you are charged the total amount for it, which you pay. Then you get 70-85% of it back as a reimbursement form the state, depending on your salary. You can be seen by a private hospital if you wish, but you only get reimbursed 70-85% of the cost of treatment at a Public hospital. They still have central management costs, like everywhere else.

It is an excellent standard, but it is very expensive too and France had a deficit of nearly 15BnEuros last year, and is spending 12% of GDP on health.

So all in all, France probably wasn't the best example to give, was it?

I didn't say the french system was free at the point of need. Stop putting words into my mouth. It's a sign of someone that's clutching at straws because they are losing the argument.
The french system is less wasteful with more money going to patient care and less on pointless bureaucracy as many of the inefficiencies are rooted out by competition. It is of course more expensive but then again I doubt that they have hospitals where they find cadavers that have been in the morgue overnight that still have a pulse in the morning several times per month
Whilst the NHS spends 1/4 of it's entire budget on centralised management. That's before it gets to the PCT's who further waste time, effort and money.

I'd rather pay a sizable percentage more for a service that helps me and others when ill rather than one that is guilty of killing as many people unnecessarily as it saves. Whilst all of the quangos that run it are focussing on politics rather than practicalities.

Actually, since you are resorting to straw man arguments to be able to accuse me of lying, I can't be bothered with discussing this with you any more. You are more blinkered than santa. At least he's entertaining.

[Saracen]

You are either lying, in the mistaken hope that I don't know about it, or don't actually know what you are talking about. ....

Keep up that kind of remark and your account will be suspended. Read the rules on insults.

Knock it off. Now.

[opel80uk]

Keep up that kind of remark and your account will be suspended. Read the rules on insults.

Knock it off. Now.

Fair enough, Apologies.

[TheAnimus]

At no point did I imply or say that people don't value the NHS. My response was to a direct quote that said we need to cut the numbers of public sector workers. I was merely pointing out that cutting the public sector will have repercussions on public services and as I work in the NHS and know most about that, I used it as an example. I could have found reports about cuts in the council and the knock on effect that they had, but I wouldn't have known as much about it. You seemed perfectly happy to let the thread run when at points it became, for some, a thread on whether or not Public Sector workers are lazy, or was that ok because it kept in line with the first posts overall tone?

Public sector workers generally work shorter hours, would you agree with that?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/e...port-says.html
Ok that link is a bit apples to oranges, but what about this guys ranting?
http://ajerrison.wordpress.com/2011/...rivate-sector/

One of the main, if not THE main reason we have rising costs in healthcare is due to the rising cost of drugs . Last year GSK made 1.9Bn profit, and you have the audacity to question those who complain about their profit margins? And that's not going into how drug companies have held back drug development by refusing to work with other companies and state based agencies and share their knowledge and research to develop better drugs at a quicker pace, all in the name of maximising their potential profits. Next you'll be telling me that they needed that margin of profit to invest in other drugs, so it was in our interests really.

Actually, 1.9BN isn't much for a firm that size, try not to think of it as "omg look at the big number" but the shares, the amount the people who have invested will see back. If I had a company which had 100BN, no one would be impressed if I managed to make 5BN a year. Its about perspective. And that is why I choose EPS as a figure to use.

The mess with drug companies I would lay at the feet of the average joe, we have incredibly expensive testing, incredibly expensive lawsuits when they just don't work. We have become so failure adverse, due to the risk of a life, that we are failing to save as many as we possibly could.

Again this is drifting off topic. If you want to talk about the futures of the NHS, how purist free market won't work (ie lemon market) then please do. I think you have my take on it wrong

That maybe so, but it doesn't mean that people shouldn't be asking why, if they are easily curable, are they not being?

Not saying it doesn't but it means we have to admit we are objective about these things. We allow people to die for convenience. A debate on pensions, isn't the place for that. Nor is the idea we should reduce public workers, as that concept doesn't forbid increase in the NHS

I think's that probably clear. I would also suggest that your statement that you are a top 10% earner, and Barrichello's statement that he and his family have private healthcare goes someway to explaining to me why you feel how you feel, as being someone who has travelled a lot, and seen varying different standards of healthcare

You know I personally don't have private health?
I personally think I should get a damn fine service from the amount of tax I pay, and to buy private health states that I'm willing to compromise on that. (I'm a great believer in the micro level 'dollar vote')

I find it incomprehensible that anyone would not think that the costs of keeping the NHS (and their staff) are not worth paying, especially when most independent studies show that the actual cost of, in this case pensions, is not unfordable.

No they are simply saying that they are not in deficit, not that they are affordable, I dislike the term affordable, because ultimately if they taxed pensions, via some kind of dividend tax, they could continue to 'afford' them. Its ONLY public money which can fund them. If a public worker contributes 15% of his publicly paid salary, its still public money too. That is why I prefer to look at a cost example, such as the £32k pa teacher, with £500k annutity.

But you tend to find the biggest criticism of the catch all 'public sector' are from people that can afford to use it as least as possible. Private healthcare, living in expensive, crime less areas, private schooling for the kids (or at least the best state schools), that's great if you can afford it, but there is a whole section of society out there who can't, and need that safety net. There will always be people like you, bemoaning and criticising how much these services are costing you as an individual, and that's your right. But don't be surprised when you find there are others who will defend those services to the hilt.

Healthcare, crime, school, how much do you think they make up of the total treasury bill?

I've lost count of the times I've heard that by someone, and then when pressed on it, the said person is found to not really know anything about the NHS, nor any ideas as to how improvements could be made, but was something they read in the telegraph. Perhaps, in another thread, you could list what steps could be taken that would use up this tremendous room for improvement, cutting costs while your at it?

Being a computer professional, who has a track record making innovative desgins for massive data and calculation systems, I can't fathom how they spent so much, and delivered so little. When something on that scale happens on the free market heads roll.

The 'Cruelty' of the free market is what resulted in that 10 year old kid dying somewhere in some other part of the world for the want of clean water. The 'brilliance' is that someone, somewhere, made some profit out of it. And you think we can use that as a fair way to resolve anything.

Yes, because the kids are dieing. Now if someone can think of a way to make a profit delivering what they need to live... No more kids die. Don't ya think that is good?