Eugene Wrayburn wrote:First, the scaling up in the last week has been really impressive. In fact since the government woke up they have done a half-decent job. Far from perfect but credit where it's due.
Apparently there has been no change in how they've calculated the numbers, which means that they've always been giving a false impression. The other problem is that apparently (some tweets suggest anyway) at least some of those tests sent out have had no return address and the advice that they were given was simply to bin the test.
I don't know if you've seen him in action in PMQs but he's been being scrupulously fair but absolutely forensic. It's been a superb example of how to do it. It is time to make the "more in sorrow than in anger" criticism that it appears misleading, whatever their intention. I wouldn't make the accusation that it was dishonest yet because that will look like politics as normal.
It really isn't. The politicians are and have been in control throughout. It's just that they have only taken their fingers out of their arses in the past 6 weeks or so. PHE only has the money the politicians allow it so running off to private providers was always going to need the politicians involvement. However you're absolutely right about the importance of the government messaging being right and them being seen to be honest for us to be able to get through this.
Reports that SAGE had to bumped into agreeing to/recommending social distancing measures and that Jnr ministers are unhappy that Snr ministers are enthral to SAGE Politicians make the ultimate decision but that decision will rest on the advice they receive. To say anything else is plain wrong. Don’t see/agree with the PHE and money argument.
Accountability v responsibility, govt accountable, PHE responsible. If PHE not fit for purpose, funding or otherwise, its the govt that is accountable for its failure.
Completely agree. I said politicians aren’t solely to blame not that they are blameless. Love the idea that a Con govt stopped the PHE using the private sector. Truly strange times. Looking forward to us having a sensible debate about us moving towards the German social market based model after this is over
Mellsblue wrote:
Reports that SAGE had to bumped into agreeing to/recommending social distancing measures and that Jnr ministers are unhappy that Snr ministers are enthral to SAGE Politicians make the ultimate decision but that decision will rest on the advice they receive. To say anything else is plain wrong. Don’t see/agree with the PHE and money argument.
Accountability v responsibility, govt accountable, PHE responsible. If PHE not fit for purpose, funding or otherwise, its the govt that is accountable for its failure.
Completely agree. I said politicians aren’t solely to blame not that they are blameless. Love the idea that a Con govt stopped the PHE using the private sector. Truly strange times. Looking forward to us having a sensible debate about us moving towards the German social market based model after this is over
Fair, though I don't think they were 'stopped', more that they weren't instructed to change their mindset.
Banquo wrote:
Accountability v responsibility, govt accountable, PHE responsible. If PHE not fit for purpose, funding or otherwise, its the govt that is accountable for its failure.
Completely agree. I said politicians aren’t solely to blame not that they are blameless. Love the idea that a Con govt stopped the PHE using the private sector. Truly strange times. Looking forward to us having a sensible debate about us moving towards the German social market based model after this is over
Fair, though I don't think they were 'stopped', more that they weren't instructed to change their mindset.
We really need a tongue in cheek emoji. Would’ve placed one after ‘stopped’.
Mellsblue wrote:
Completely agree. I said politicians aren’t solely to blame not that they are blameless. Love the idea that a Con govt stopped the PHE using the private sector. Truly strange times. Looking forward to us having a sensible debate about us moving towards the German social market based model after this is over
Fair, though I don't think they were 'stopped', more that they weren't instructed to change their mindset.
We really need a tongue in cheek emoji. Would’ve placed one after ‘stopped’.
Germany of course uses a mixed private/public system, spends more of its GDP on health, and then whether it has enough benefit from that is open to question, waiting times are less for the average age of death looks very similar. We might even start to beat them in a few years if we carry on knocking off the old fogeys as we're currently doing.
I don't know where Germany finds the extra % to spend on health, but at a guess if we wanted to ape their spend we need to trim our military spend. And an awful lot of people will tell us we're already spending far too little on our security
Digby wrote:Germany of course uses a mixed private/public system, spends more of its GDP on health, and then whether it has enough benefit from that is open to question, waiting times are less for the average age of death looks very similar. We might even start to beat them in a few years if we carry on knocking off the old fogeys as we're currently doing.
I don't know where Germany finds the extra % to spend on health, but at a guess if we wanted to ape their spend we need to trim our military spend. And an awful lot of people will tell us we're already spending far too little on our security
What does the private 'top up' equate to, out of interest?
Anyone thinking of installing the government’s tracking app on their phone?
Personally, I’m not sure handing data from my phone to a government that has spent the last five years exploiting the latest data science to manipulate government messaging is a great idea. When Demis Hassabis is invited to SAGE meetings as a contributor you know that the app will probably work perfectly. However we don’t know the full capabilities of the app and what that version of perfect may entail.
Digby wrote:Germany of course uses a mixed private/public system, spends more of its GDP on health, and then whether it has enough benefit from that is open to question, waiting times are less for the average age of death looks very similar. We might even start to beat them in a few years if we carry on knocking off the old fogeys as we're currently doing.
I don't know where Germany finds the extra % to spend on health, but at a guess if we wanted to ape their spend we need to trim our military spend. And an awful lot of people will tell us we're already spending far too little on our security
What does the private 'top up' equate to, out of interest?
It's more a substitute than a top-up (I think) and you have to be earning a decent sum to go private, off hand above €50k or maybe above €60k or so per annum, there are some other ways in, being self-employed is one of those but there are others. How much depends on your insurer, what age you enter the private market, and conditions you have at time of entry, what level of care/service you want... but you can assume state take of your salary is around $1k a month if you're in the state system and there'd be no point going private for a worse service. About 10% go private
canta_brian wrote:Anyone thinking of installing the government’s tracking app on their phone?
Personally, I’m not sure handing data from my phone to a government that has spent the last five years exploiting the latest data science to manipulate government messaging is a great idea. When Demis Hassabis is invited to SAGE meetings as a contributor you know that the app will probably work perfectly. However we don’t know the full capabilities of the app and what that version of perfect may entail.
Anyone got any tinfoil? I’m down to my last hat.
Why has South Korea done so much better, we ask [emoji6]
Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk
It was so much easier to blame Them. It was bleakly depressing to think They were Us. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
canta_brian wrote:Anyone thinking of installing the government’s tracking app on their phone?
Personally, I’m not sure handing data from my phone to a government that has spent the last five years exploiting the latest data science to manipulate government messaging is a great idea. When Demis Hassabis is invited to SAGE meetings as a contributor you know that the app will probably work perfectly. However we don’t know the full capabilities of the app and what that version of perfect may entail.
Anyone got any tinfoil? I’m down to my last hat.
Why has South Korea done so much better, we ask [emoji6]
Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk
No we ask why have countries like SK done much better, and who the hell is this authoritarian government of ours who wants to invade our privacy?
Last I read, which was a few weeks ago, the app in SK only had a circa. 20% take up. It was the state tracking of mobile phone signals and bank card usage, along with a visit from the police if you turned your phone off or left your home, that were the most effective means.....
I turn my phone off all the time, I find it an effective means of stopping people calling me because they want to talk. I'm willing to give up a fair bit of my freedom when it comes to this, but now to find I might have to give up some of the isolation I want isn't a pleasant idea
Digby wrote:Germany of course uses a mixed private/public system, spends more of its GDP on health, and then whether it has enough benefit from that is open to question, waiting times are less for the average age of death looks very similar. We might even start to beat them in a few years if we carry on knocking off the old fogeys as we're currently doing.
I don't know where Germany finds the extra % to spend on health, but at a guess if we wanted to ape their spend we need to trim our military spend. And an awful lot of people will tell us we're already spending far too little on our security
What does the private 'top up' equate to, out of interest?
It's more a substitute than a top-up (I think) and you have to be earning a decent sum to go private, off hand above €50k or maybe above €60k or so per annum, there are some other ways in, being self-employed is one of those but there are others. How much depends on your insurer, what age you enter the private market, and conditions you have at time of entry, what level of care/service you want... but you can assume state take of your salary is around $1k a month if you're in the state system and there'd be no point going private for a worse service. About 10% go private
So you 'opt out' of paying 'health' tax and take out private insurance?
Banquo wrote:
What does the private 'top up' equate to, out of interest?
It's more a substitute than a top-up (I think) and you have to be earning a decent sum to go private, off hand above €50k or maybe above €60k or so per annum, there are some other ways in, being self-employed is one of those but there are others. How much depends on your insurer, what age you enter the private market, and conditions you have at time of entry, what level of care/service you want... but you can assume state take of your salary is around $1k a month if you're in the state system and there'd be no point going private for a worse service. About 10% go private
So you 'opt out' of paying 'health' tax and take out private insurance?
You have to have some form of insurance, state or private, having nothing isn't an option. Though the state does cover the state costs for those who are deemed unable to do so themselves. But yes, to take the private system you're opting out of the state model, and if you can afford it you can likely enjoy more choice and lower waiting times
If you're employed (rather than self-employed) and in the state system there's basically a 50/50 split between you paying and your employer paying, and I assume for those going private they'd still enjoy something similar.
Digby wrote:
It's more a substitute than a top-up (I think) and you have to be earning a decent sum to go private, off hand above €50k or maybe above €60k or so per annum, there are some other ways in, being self-employed is one of those but there are others. How much depends on your insurer, what age you enter the private market, and conditions you have at time of entry, what level of care/service you want... but you can assume state take of your salary is around $1k a month if you're in the state system and there'd be no point going private for a worse service. About 10% go private
So you 'opt out' of paying 'health' tax and take out private insurance?
You have to have some form of insurance, state or private, having nothing isn't an option. Though the state does cover the state costs for those who are deemed unable to do so themselves. But yes, to take the private system you're opting out of the state model, and if you can afford it you can likely enjoy more choice and lower waiting times
If you're employed (rather than self-employed) and in the state system there's basically a 50/50 split between you paying and your employer paying, and I assume for those going private they'd still enjoy something similar.
I'd favour making those who can afford it here being privately insured whilst still paying same contribution levels as everyone to the NHS, on the proviso that state provision is of appropriate quality.
One interesting stat I'd like to see at some point is how much the private sector has been paid for reserving beds etc during COVD 19, because up here they have hardly been used, but I bet they still get paid for.
Banquo wrote:
So you 'opt out' of paying 'health' tax and take out private insurance?
You have to have some form of insurance, state or private, having nothing isn't an option. Though the state does cover the state costs for those who are deemed unable to do so themselves. But yes, to take the private system you're opting out of the state model, and if you can afford it you can likely enjoy more choice and lower waiting times
If you're employed (rather than self-employed) and in the state system there's basically a 50/50 split between you paying and your employer paying, and I assume for those going private they'd still enjoy something similar.
I'd favour making those who can afford it here being privately insured whilst still paying same contribution levels as everyone to the NHS, on the proviso that state provision is of appropriate quality.
One interesting stat I'd like to see at some point is how much the private sector has been paid for reserving beds etc during COVD 19, because up here they have hardly been used, but I bet they still get paid for.
If you want to insist people be privately insured you'd need quite a lot of control over insurance firms for those with pre existing conditions or who develop conditions the insurance firms would want bigger returns on. I've no problem with the idea the rich can pay more, but there are limits and even the very rich entails but a tiny number who could meet some catastrophic health costs. The insurance firms left to themselves would turn a number of currently wealth individuals into poverty stricken individuals in health costs, or flood insurance costs, or...
And for myself I'm not sold we don't just tax them more in general tax rather than call tax a number of different things for various hypothecated spends. But if the only way to raise the money overall without overwhelming objection is to accept hypothecation I'd rather have the money than hold out on a point of principle
Just one further on Germany, I know they have a number of what our US friends call copays, and I'm pretty confident one of those is paying to see a doctor, something we lose a lot of money on each year
I haven’t got a problem with paying some form of additional insurance based on a salary cut off level. Provided that people who aren’t mega rich aren’t left screwed if they develop some kind of life changing illness that results in unaffordable insurance.
Sandydragon wrote:I haven’t got a problem with paying some form of additional insurance based on a salary cut off level. Provided that people who aren’t mega rich aren’t left screwed if they develop some kind of life changing illness that results in unaffordable insurance.
aye, that was my point on the free of charge point of need healthcare being of a 'sufficient standard'. I'm also not saying those paying privately can't access the NHS- just that they pay twice, as I have done for years.
Digby wrote:
You have to have some form of insurance, state or private, having nothing isn't an option. Though the state does cover the state costs for those who are deemed unable to do so themselves. But yes, to take the private system you're opting out of the state model, and if you can afford it you can likely enjoy more choice and lower waiting times
If you're employed (rather than self-employed) and in the state system there's basically a 50/50 split between you paying and your employer paying, and I assume for those going private they'd still enjoy something similar.
I'd favour making those who can afford it here being privately insured whilst still paying same contribution levels as everyone to the NHS, on the proviso that state provision is of appropriate quality.
One interesting stat I'd like to see at some point is how much the private sector has been paid for reserving beds etc during COVD 19, because up here they have hardly been used, but I bet they still get paid for.
If you want to insist people be privately insured you'd need quite a lot of control over insurance firms for those with pre existing conditions or who develop conditions the insurance firms would want bigger returns on. I've no problem with the idea the rich can pay more, but there are limits and even the very rich entails but a tiny number who could meet some catastrophic health costs. The insurance firms left to themselves would turn a number of currently wealth individuals into poverty stricken individuals in health costs, or flood insurance costs, or...
And for myself I'm not sold we don't just tax them more in general tax rather than call tax a number of different things for various hypothecated spends. But if the only way to raise the money overall without overwhelming objection is to accept hypothecation I'd rather have the money than hold out on a point of principle
Just one further on Germany, I know they have a number of what our US friends call copays, and I'm pretty confident one of those is paying to see a doctor, something we lose a lot of money on each year
...unfortunately the country has consistently shown itself to be unwilling to pay higher direct taxes. And also to have a sensible discussion on the NHS, especially funding.
Sandydragon wrote:I haven’t got a problem with paying some form of additional insurance based on a salary cut off level. Provided that people who aren’t mega rich aren’t left screwed if they develop some kind of life changing illness that results in unaffordable insurance.
aye, that was my point on the free of charge point of need healthcare being of a 'sufficient standard'. I'm also not saying those paying privately can't access the NHS- just that they pay twice, as I have done for years.
I used to pay twice in the same way. I had a couple of colleagues who seemed to think that they were being stiffed by this double payment. You only need to look at the US to see where the cost of private healthcare ends up if you don’t have a high quality free option to fall back on.
Sandydragon wrote:I haven’t got a problem with paying some form of additional insurance based on a salary cut off level. Provided that people who aren’t mega rich aren’t left screwed if they develop some kind of life changing illness that results in unaffordable insurance.
aye, that was my point on the free of charge point of need healthcare being of a 'sufficient standard'. I'm also not saying those paying privately can't access the NHS- just that they pay twice, as I have done for years.
Are you endorsing the current two tier system of private and NHS or just that companies hiring people over £X per year need to pay in extra for those people. Cause the latter I'd be intrigued by, but the former is a problem. It's the same as with private schools - the best personnel will be hunted by the fee-paying sector, denuding the national service, and creating a two tier system where paying more gets you better quality in something which should be a universal right. And, funnily enough, almost all of the decision-makers and people with influence in the country have enough money to be signed up to the fee-paying option, so if the national service goes to the dogs, it doesn't have the slightest effect on them or their loved ones.
Tl;dr - I am uncomfortable with survival rate in healthcare depending on how rich you are/your parents were.
Sandydragon wrote:I haven’t got a problem with paying some form of additional insurance based on a salary cut off level. Provided that people who aren’t mega rich aren’t left screwed if they develop some kind of life changing illness that results in unaffordable insurance.
aye, that was my point on the free of charge point of need healthcare being of a 'sufficient standard'. I'm also not saying those paying privately can't access the NHS- just that they pay twice, as I have done for years.
Are you endorsing the current two tier system of private and NHS or just that companies hiring people over £X per year need to pay in extra for those people. Cause the latter I'd be intrigued by, but the former is a problem. It's the same as with private schools - the best personnel will be hunted by the fee-paying sector, denuding the national service, and creating a two tier system where paying more gets you better quality in something which should be a universal right. And, funnily enough, almost all of the decision-makers and people with influence in the country have enough money to be signed up to the fee-paying option, so if the national service goes to the dogs, it doesn't have the slightest effect on them or their loved ones.
Tl;dr - I am uncomfortable with survival rate in healthcare depending on how rich you are/your parents were.
Puja
you missed what I said about quality then. I`m saying I am happy to pay twice, as I do, provided free at point of need is not denuded ie not about survival rate. I have also paid twice during my kids education up to uni. Lucky me you might say- though not inherited. Scoff away.
Banquo wrote:
aye, that was my point on the free of charge point of need healthcare being of a 'sufficient standard'. I'm also not saying those paying privately can't access the NHS- just that they pay twice, as I have done for years.
Are you endorsing the current two tier system of private and NHS or just that companies hiring people over £X per year need to pay in extra for those people. Cause the latter I'd be intrigued by, but the former is a problem. It's the same as with private schools - the best personnel will be hunted by the fee-paying sector, denuding the national service, and creating a two tier system where paying more gets you better quality in something which should be a universal right. And, funnily enough, almost all of the decision-makers and people with influence in the country have enough money to be signed up to the fee-paying option, so if the national service goes to the dogs, it doesn't have the slightest effect on them or their loved ones.
Tl;dr - I am uncomfortable with survival rate in healthcare depending on how rich you are/your parents were.
Puja
you missed what I said about quality then. I`m saying I am happy to pay twice, as I do, provided free at point of need is not denuded ie not about survival rate. I have also paid twice during my kids education up to uni. Lucky me you might say- though not inherited. Scoff away.
It always will be denuded though. Spending public money for everyone is unpopular, whereas spending money to get your own kids the best is the opposite, so the private sector will always be better funded and better quality. Add to this the fact that none of the decision-makers on how much to fund the public option will have themselves or their kids in the public option and it gets even worse.
Puja wrote:
Are you endorsing the current two tier system of private and NHS or just that companies hiring people over £X per year need to pay in extra for those people. Cause the latter I'd be intrigued by, but the former is a problem. It's the same as with private schools - the best personnel will be hunted by the fee-paying sector, denuding the national service, and creating a two tier system where paying more gets you better quality in something which should be a universal right. And, funnily enough, almost all of the decision-makers and people with influence in the country have enough money to be signed up to the fee-paying option, so if the national service goes to the dogs, it doesn't have the slightest effect on them or their loved ones.
Tl;dr - I am uncomfortable with survival rate in healthcare depending on how rich you are/your parents were.
Puja
you missed what I said about quality then. I`m saying I am happy to pay twice, as I do, provided free at point of need is not denuded ie not about survival rate. I have also paid twice during my kids education up to uni. Lucky me you might say- though not inherited. Scoff away.
It always will be denuded though. Spending public money for everyone is unpopular, whereas spending money to get your own kids the best is the opposite, so the private sector will always be better funded and better quality. Add to this the fact that none of the decision-makers on how much to fund the public option will have themselves or their kids in the public option and it gets even worse.
Puja
It's not really true of most health care though. Most major health care is improved by people having to do volumes (practice makes perfect). It's probably not true of general practice where it's useful to have someone spend enough time to do a proper assessment, but once you get to specialist level they usually have to do the volume to stay at the top of the game.
BY FAR the most efficient way of delivering health care is the NHS but it needs to be national. That's not to say that local managers shouldn't be able to make some purchasing decisions or have a shift of focus, but for example, having various trust compete with each other to buy PPE is fucking stupid.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Puja wrote:
Are you endorsing the current two tier system of private and NHS or just that companies hiring people over £X per year need to pay in extra for those people. Cause the latter I'd be intrigued by, but the former is a problem. It's the same as with private schools - the best personnel will be hunted by the fee-paying sector, denuding the national service, and creating a two tier system where paying more gets you better quality in something which should be a universal right. And, funnily enough, almost all of the decision-makers and people with influence in the country have enough money to be signed up to the fee-paying option, so if the national service goes to the dogs, it doesn't have the slightest effect on them or their loved ones.
Tl;dr - I am uncomfortable with survival rate in healthcare depending on how rich you are/your parents were.
Puja
you missed what I said about quality then. I`m saying I am happy to pay twice, as I do, provided free at point of need is not denuded ie not about survival rate. I have also paid twice during my kids education up to uni. Lucky me you might say- though not inherited. Scoff away.
It always will be denuded though. Spending public money for everyone is unpopular, whereas spending money to get your own kids the best is the opposite, so the private sector will always be better funded and better quality. Add to this the fact that none of the decision-makers on how much to fund the public option will have themselves or their kids in the public option and it gets even worse.
Puja
Not sure whether you are talking about healthcare or education. Either way, what’s your proposal on healthcare?
