Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Collapse of emergency healthcare in England may be costing 500 lives every week

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 461 posts

Re: Collapse of emergency healthcare in England may be costing 500 lives every week

#451

Post by cmrdporcupine »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #448
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 407 could likely handle 3, 4 times the capacity it holds right now. I don't know what the elasticity situation and supply/demand looks like for that highway. I can guarantee you that the owners do, and they've set it accordingly to accomplish their goals ($$). But not necessarily the goals the benefit the city. For me it's the difference between being able to work at certain employers in the west end of the GTA v…

Was the toll road utilized before the government sold it off?

It wasn't finished.

Re: Collapse of emergency healthcare in England may be costing 500 lives every week

#452

Post by sidewndr46 »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #451
sidewndr46 wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was the toll road utilized before the government sold it off?

It wasn't finished.

Ah alright, that makes discussion of this rather complicated. We don't really know what the road would have ever looked like when completed by the Canadian government.

Re: Collapse of emergency healthcare in England may be costing 500 lives every week

#453

Post by oliwarner »

origin_path wrote: post #405
oliwarner wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say that like it's an imperative but it's not. This is a choice. Through the government we elected, we choose to starve social care. We choose to starve education and so many other public services. Yes, our age profile made it more expensive, but so what? We choose to underfund it.

It's actually through the local governments, many of which are Labour yet have the same issue. Root cause: the law says to raise local taxes beyond a certain amount councils must hold a referendum. They systematically refuse to do this because they know they will lose. Voters by and large think local councils are wasteful and don't really need more money. There's also another issue: some local councils especially in…

Well I suggest you visit Norfolk. Councils have sold off their long-held land to developers, dumped their investments to their mates, stripped down services and tendered the rest. Serco does everything.

Save the odd blip, Norfolk is as blue as it gets. Interestingly they also blame central government.

And local tax raising is pretty blunt. How much your house would have been worth in April 1991, if you're working. High-retirement or high-unemployment areas usually have lower rates, and much lower incomes, while needing more than rich areas.

Re: Collapse of emergency healthcare in England may be costing 500 lives every week

#454

Post by spiralx »

buscoquadnary wrote: post #211
WhyIsItGlowing wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Back in 2004 when I lived in the UK, the NHS was really good. And I remember hearing at that time that it was nothing compared to the NHS in the 80s and 90s. In a lot of respects, this isn't very accurate. It got pretty bad in the early '90s, anything that needed to go beyond the GP had really bad wait times, people stuck on trolleys in A&E, etc. By 2004 it was much better, so that anything which required a hospita…

I have to wonder how much of the current "crises" we are seeing right now are simply because of a massive aging population. Of course the medical system is going to have issues, no matter if it is public or private, if you suddenly increase the demand, as the older you get the more health care you need, while at the same time all your most capable and experienced doctors are retiring. Another is housing, right now we…

An aging population is a significant factor, another one is the increasing range of treatments available today - and of course they combine because most medical expenditure happens during the last part of a person's life.

Re: Collapse of emergency healthcare in England may be costing 500 lives every week

#455

Post by ETH_start »

oliwarner wrote: post #449
ETH_start wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying something is starved means saying it's underfunded. The statistics show more funds being allocated to social welfare programs. If those social welfare programs are mismanaging those funds, that's an entirely different argument than arguing it's "starved".

Your statistics show an actual fall in the past 10 years. It's worse than that because the true picture needs to factor in local government spending now. If we pretend there's been steady investment, and imagine stable demand, the same thing can cost more than it did before. But irl, budgets have collapsed, demand is soaring and costs have already risen and are about to explode due to fuel-driven inflation. So no, st…

>>Your statistics show an actual fall in the past 10 years.

From 22.79% of GDP in 2010, to 21.49% in 2016 (the last year provided). This is after an increase from 10.44% to 1964 to 22.79% in 2010. The big picture is a massive multi-generational increase in social welfare spending, interspersed with tiny downward fluctuations over a small proportion of the years covered.

>>It's worse than that because the true picture needs to factor in local government spending now.

This is aggregate public spending, so it should already be factoring in local government spending.

>>If we pretend there's been steady investment, and imagine stable demand, the same thing can cost more than it did before.

Per capita GDP has increased in inflation-adjusted terms, so when social welfare spending as a percentage of GDP increases, that means a real (inflation-adjusted) increase in per capita social welfare spending.

The only possible way this leads to less support for citizens in need is growing mismanagement of the funds by the social welfare programmes.

Re: Collapse of emergency healthcare in England may be costing 500 lives every week

#456

Post by origin_path »

oliwarner wrote: post #453
origin_path wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually through the local governments, many of which are Labour yet have the same issue. Root cause: the law says to raise local taxes beyond a certain amount councils must hold a referendum. They systematically refuse to do this because they know they will lose. Voters by and large think local councils are wasteful and don't really need more money. There's also another issue: some local councils especially in…

Well I suggest you visit Norfolk. Councils have sold off their long-held land to developers, dumped their investments to their mates, stripped down services and tendered the rest. Serco does everything. Save the odd blip, Norfolk is as blue as it gets. Interestingly they also blame central government. And local tax raising is pretty blunt. How much your house would have been worth in April 1991, if you're working. Hi…

Yes, I said "many of which are Labour yet have the same issue" i.e. it's an issue with local governments of all stripes. There's a culture of spending more than tax levels allow then expecting central government to make up the difference.

Re: Collapse of emergency healthcare in England may be costing 500 lives every week

#457

Post by Baloo »

6figurelenins wrote: post #444
Baloo wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are (hopefully) concerned with growing inequality, wealth centralising into small pockets of society, the lawlessness in which multinational corporate entities operate, the damage being caused to the environment by heavily promoted consumerism..

What do you mean by inequality, and how much can you accept for a machine that kills poverty? https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-in-extre...

https://ourworldindata.org/global-economic-inequality

Re: Collapse of emergency healthcare in England may be costing 500 lives every week

#458

Post by oliwarner »

ETH_start wrote: post #455
oliwarner wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your statistics show an actual fall in the past 10 years. It's worse than that because the true picture needs to factor in local government spending now. If we pretend there's been steady investment, and imagine stable demand, the same thing can cost more than it did before. But irl, budgets have collapsed, demand is soaring and costs have already risen and are about to explode due to fuel-driven inflation. So no, st…

>>Your statistics show an actual fall in the past 10 years. From 22.79% of GDP in 2010, to 21.49% in 2016 (the last year provided). This is after an increase from 10.44% to 1964 to 22.79% in 2010. The big picture is a massive multi-generational increase in social welfare spending, interspersed with tiny downward fluctuations over a small proportion of the years covered. >>It's worse than that because the true picture…

You asked how this amounted to Tory penny pinching in another stub but you're answering it. Since Tories came to power in 2010, a 1.3% fall in all social spending in an economy that has grown slower than inflation means an actual terms cut.

It's important to note that social welfare also covers housing, unemployment and other things not care in the same sense as being discussed. Housing costs have exploded in price so even more of that stagnant budget has been diverted away from care.

Once you allow for inflation, there is a growing underspend in care. A starvation. Yes, generations of growth, but not finding it appropriately now (and for a decade) means it's being starved.

https://www.health.org.uk/publications/long-reads/health-and...

I'm leaving it with the Health Foundation, there. I'd suggest you read that if you really want an appreciation of how budgets and inflation work together but if you just want to tell me "they have more money, so it's being wasted more" you don't understand how money works; I can't help you.

And if you're reading around, be wary of COVID era numbers as they include boosts for testing and extraordinary measures. Nothing that increases provisionable service.

Re: Collapse of emergency healthcare in England may be costing 500 lives every week

#459

Post by ETH_start »

oliwarner wrote: post #458
ETH_start wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Your statistics show an actual fall in the past 10 years. From 22.79% of GDP in 2010, to 21.49% in 2016 (the last year provided). This is after an increase from 10.44% to 1964 to 22.79% in 2010. The big picture is a massive multi-generational increase in social welfare spending, interspersed with tiny downward fluctuations over a small proportion of the years covered. >>It's worse than that because the true picture…

You asked how this amounted to Tory penny pinching in another stub but you're answering it. Since Tories came to power in 2010, a 1.3% fall in all social spending in an economy that has grown slower than inflation means an actual terms cut. It's important to note that social welfare also covers housing, unemployment and other things not care in the same sense as being discussed. Housing costs have exploded in price s…

If spending was the issue, the doubling of social welfare spending's share of GDP would have provided such a massive amount of resources to these programs that a 1.3 percent drop in relative spending wouldn't lead to the dire outcomes this article references.

And if you call the Tories reducing spending by 1.3 percent of GDP, what do you call a doubling of spending as a share of GDP? The Big Picture here is massive spending growth over the long run, that totally eclipses this minute drop.

>>Once you allow for inflation, there is a growing underspend in care

Wrong. The UK has seen significant per capita GDP growth, after accounting for inflation.

So rising social spending as a percentage of GDP means rapidly rising inflation-adjusted spending per capita.

Re: Collapse of emergency healthcare in England may be costing 500 lives every week

#460

Post by johnday »

cas14655 wrote: post #422
johnday wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly is the point you are trying to make? Yes, under a pro-spending, forward-looking government (such as the one we had from roughly 1997 to 2010), staffed public services improved and a trajectory was laid down for future improvements. Under pro-austerity, myopic governments (such as the one we had from 2010 until now), public services have been rotting from the inside. It's not difficult to draw a straight…

> pro-spending / pro-austerity NHS spending 2009/2010: £124.1 billion NHS spending 2019/2020: £148.9 billion > What exactly is the point you are trying to make? You don't have a clue about what's actually going on in reality. That was the point. Thanks for proving it. > Pouring money into "diversity" is certainly nothing to do with it It must be nice to be able to spend the same money twice. Please let us know how ex…

> NHS spending 2009/2010 [...]

The numbers you cite represent a real-terms fall after inflation - despite the population growing about 8% in that time - AND a reduction as a proportion of GDP.

> It must be nice to be able to spend the same money twice. [...]

Meaningless.

> People dying right now waiting for ambulances. [...]

Yes, well observed. I do know that. The fact that more do not is frankly miraculous - and the fact that many do right now is more testament to chronic underfunding of other public services, especially elder care and social services.

> So your plan is to put all your eggs into one basket (i.e. state-run health care)

No. You have invented that line of thinking. In the UK state and private healthcare coexist. The only way to put all the eggs in one basket would be to erase the public provision of services which, in case you hadn't noticed, is exactly what the conservatives are trying to do.

Post reply on HN