Live data from Hacker News

Ill in England? Your Location Can Determine If You Live or Die

bloomberg.com

91–96 of 96 posts

Re: Ill in England? Your Location Can Determine If You Live or Die

#91
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to add some extra data for other people. The UK has an aging population. Old people need more healthcare spending. If we adjust the data for age and demographic changes, then we can see spending was reduced between 2010 and 2021. https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/the-past-present-...

It is pretty blatant dishonesty to call it defunded or reduced spending though, as much as some ideologues like to claim it is.

The people doing the defunding say that it's defunding. They're proud of it. They wrote a manifesto saying they were going to do it, and then they did it.

It's pretty blatant dishonesty to say that healthcare hasn't been defunded, and then only focus on NHS provision of healthcare while ignoring public health, social care, nursing care, etc.

Re: Ill in England? Your Location Can Determine If You Live or Die

#92
post #89
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the UK has ever had a government that actually wanted the NHS to fail. Even the most right wing conservatives realize they're stuck with it and that voters will be happier if it works better. They have very few levers to achieve that. Private sector involvement is one but not a very powerful one given that the NHS killed off the private health sector in the UK and ensures it can't regrow to any kind of…

> I don't think the UK has ever had a government that actually wanted the NHS to fail. > I also really doubt there are many in government or politics who want a US style system. You might want to read "Britania Unchained" which very much says that they want to dismantle the NHS. There's a bunch of current Conservative politicians who want to effectively dismantle the NHS and implement a US style system. They're very…

Indeed that's so, but it's not what I said. Those politicians want to dismantle the NHS because they believe that it will inevitably fail regardless of what they do, indeed that it already is failing, and that there's just no way to make that structure work, no more than the USSR could be made to work. That's not the same as wanting it to fail. Clearly life would be easier for them if it weren't the case as then they could avoid being blamed by voters for it.

The book doesn't say they want to replace the NHS with a US style system. Have you read it? I haven't but according to the Guardian - the least friendly and neutral reviewers imaginable - they argue for a French style system instead:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/aug/22/britannia-u...

Sometimes these are less fearsome than you might expect – Raab likes the French healthcare system; Truss admires the German economy – but often the foreign models cited are Asian

Observe: no mention of the USA. But it seems that the book must hardly mention health, given that healthcare isn't even mentioned on the Wikipedia summary of the book and the Guardian review mentions it only in passing.

The idea that the Tories hate the NHS for ideological reasons and want the US system is a common idea on the British left, but that's not what they really think. What they really think is that the NHS is a lost cause and a European health insurance model would work better. They also think a US style economy would be beneficial. Given that the US is now a lot richer than the UK and their economy is motoring ahead, it seems the book's prediction of a "slide into mediocrity" has come true. The ultimate determinant is wealth - given enough of a gap, a poor Britain will always have worse outcomes than a rich USA regardless of how healthcare costs are paid.

Re: Ill in England? Your Location Can Determine If You Live or Die

#93
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is pretty blatant dishonesty to call it defunded or reduced spending though, as much as some ideologues like to claim it is.

The people doing the defunding say that it's defunding. They're proud of it. They wrote a manifesto saying they were going to do it, and then they did it. It's pretty blatant dishonesty to say that healthcare hasn't been defunded, and then only focus on NHS provision of healthcare while ignoring public health, social care, nursing care, etc.

> The people doing the defunding say that it's defunding. They're proud of it. They wrote a manifesto saying they were going to do it, and then they did it.

Oh? Do what, fund the health system at almost record levels?

> It's pretty blatant dishonesty to say that healthcare hasn't been defunded, and then only focus on NHS provision of healthcare while ignoring public health, social care, nursing care, etc.

It would be if someone had done that. Incidentally, are you saying that NHS has not been defunded? You wouldn't be very popular with said ideologues either then.

Re: Ill in England? Your Location Can Determine If You Live or Die

#94
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Labour under Blair significantly increased the spending on the NHS compared to the conservative government before them.

https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/the-past-present-... Looks like there has been no slashing going on, even adjusted for inflation and demographics. And the conservative governments after 2010 kept funding at about the same levels as the Labour governments set it at. Fancy that. I wonder what governments have had to show for this massive 2x increase in adjusted healthcare spending. Vast improvements to the s…

Your own source shows that when adjusted for population size/etc the trend has been flat/slightly down.

Now add inflation, that it was underfunded in the first place, and that the charts used start right after a major recession & the beginning of Thatcher…

Re: Ill in England? Your Location Can Determine If You Live or Die

#95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/the-past-present-... Looks like there has been no slashing going on, even adjusted for inflation and demographics. And the conservative governments after 2010 kept funding at about the same levels as the Labour governments set it at. Fancy that. I wonder what governments have had to show for this massive 2x increase in adjusted healthcare spending. Vast improvements to the s…

Your own source shows that when adjusted for population size/etc the trend has been flat/slightly down. Now add inflation, that it was underfunded in the first place, and that the charts used start right after a major recession & the beginning of Thatcher…

I think about flat since Labour was last in power, yes. And it is adjusted for inflation. Seems to have been no real "defunding" going on. And if it was underfunded in the first place, a 3x adjusted increase in spending must have done wonders for it, there must be significant improvements in key objective metrics since then, have there been?

Re: Ill in England? Your Location Can Determine If You Live or Die

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your own source shows that when adjusted for population size/etc the trend has been flat/slightly down. Now add inflation, that it was underfunded in the first place, and that the charts used start right after a major recession & the beginning of Thatcher…

I think about flat since Labour was last in power, yes. And it is adjusted for inflation. Seems to have been no real "defunding" going on. And if it was underfunded in the first place, a 3x adjusted increase in spending must have done wonders for it, there must be significant improvements in key objective metrics since then, have there been?

> Seems to have been no real "defunding" going on

Not increasing funding to match inflation is defunding. If you disagree then you’ll be fine working for the sane salary you’d have had in the mid 90s, right?

No. You would not. So either you’re being deliberately obtuse or now you understand

Post reply on HN