"May questions UK’s top tier military status.."

#41
There is very little reason to think the NHS would cost less if people died younger. If you're 85 you have about a third of lifetime medical costs to come, but that would still be the case if you were equally sick and 65. It's being ill that costs. (See here: Prevention, longevity and health system costs)

The point everyone is missing is that is that the cohorts of people getting old are huge because of the post-war baby boom. Whether people run up a lot of medical costs at 65 or 85 is not a big deal. That group of people being a huge group is. And there is nothing anyone can do about that.
 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer
#42
There is money. It just gets wasted on crap that isnt important.

The NHS isnt struggling - its extremely badly managed

Why the **** would we be losing £300m a week following Brexit? You ******* loon.


Otherwise, perfectly reasonable for May to question it.
We have a big exit bill to pay, we will not be seeing any financial benefit from Brexit for about ten years, and that's if the economy picks up, it might not in which case stand by for even more cuts and higher taxes from whoever is in power.
 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer
#43
We are dealing with the consequences of the "baby boomers" getting old. Coupled to improvements in 20th century public health, we have an elderly population that is in physically good shape.
Mortality is right down.
Morbidity is way up.
The elderly aren't dying of tobacco related lung cancers, industrial injury, malnutrition or TB a couple of years after retiring.
They are dying at the end of their natural span with a host of annoying, expensive but non fatal manageable conditions.

The services they require tend to be long term social care. This is more expensive than a couple of weeks in hospital then home.

The biggest avoidable costs are all public health issues.(Which is cheap, but politically unpopular).
Ban tobacco.
Tax sugar.
Encourage exercise.

The NHS is not really a "health "service. It is an "illness management" service.
You forgot to mention he numbers of immigrants since Blair opened the doors.
It is that figure which is putting a terminal strain on the NHS and Education, not to mention every other service and housing.
 
#44
You forgot to mention he numbers of immigrants since Blair opened the doors.
It is that figure which is putting a terminal strain on the NHS and Education, not to mention every other service and housing.
No, its not. About about the massive group of baby boomers now passing 65 and becoming ill.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#45
The MoD should always be open to question and they should be ready to answer; otherwise all we get is stagnation?

If it is decided we are not Teir One then a hard look should be made at what we have, how it is used and how funded. If we are to revert to Defence Force+ then set the services up as that in the best possible way, able to defend this country, it's seas and airspace. A well trained and equipped force is then put in place to do just that.

If more is required then scope and fix according to requirements - which is what I thought the SDSR was supposed to be but that is now just a Treasury led bean count looking for savings; completely opposite to the real role of an SDSR.

Of course, once this nice compact defence force is set up, along comes another PM with Napoleonitis and back to square one with the Services trying to do tasks they are not set up for! :(
 
#46
I really do take issue with that view point. I have no Idea what percentage of elder P's are in residential care, my family never have been. what we do hear consistently is the bleating of for Profit organisations as they can't cope and how we must pay more. If there wasn't substantial profit in it they wouldn't do it. And it's not as if aged care hasn't been around for a few centuries. From the current news the NHS seems to be colluding in the deception as well.
I did not say residential care. I said social.
There is a fact that as you age the number of social links you have falls.

It is not unusual nowadays to have elderly people, in poor health, with few surviving or local family members.

Even if they are still fit enough to live in their own, they tend to have very high rates of loneliness and depression.

This is one of the reasons that GPs are choked. The elderly only have their doctor to speak to.

Another problem is the bed blocking of elderly patients stuck in hospital because there is no safe place with carers to discharge them to. There was a surge in profit minded care provision a few years ago. Once care standards were tightened up, this has rather thinned out.

Aged care was traditionally a duty dumped on the junior unmarried daughter in a big family. Those large families are very rare nowadays.

With respect, I think you may find that your family is very much the exception, not the rule.
There is no collusion. No deception. Just demographics, and changing social patterns.
 
#47
There is very little reason to think the NHS would cost less if people died younger. If you're 85 you have about a third of lifetime medical costs to come, but that would still be the case if you were equally sick and 65. It's being ill that costs. (See here: Prevention, longevity and health system costs)

The point everyone is missing is that is that the cohorts of people getting old are huge because of the post-war baby boom. Whether people run up a lot of medical costs at 65 or 85 is not a big deal. That group of people being a huge group is. And there is nothing anyone can do about that.
Apart from the waste in the NHS and mismanagement, they could save a fortune by focussing more on preventative medicine

If people were given health checks more regularly, and there was more a push for healthy lifestyle changes a lot of money could be saved in the long term
 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer
#48
No, its not. About about the massive group of baby boomers now passing 65 and becoming ill.
No it's not. Read that below, it's come home to roost, they take far more than they contribute. The baby boomers contributed. We can not support our own because of these figures, it's plain to see we are going to suffer for years to come.

Immigration Under Labour
 

R0B

Old-Salt
#49
If multinational companies weren't so good at offshoring their profits we may have some revenue to invest in defence and the NHS.
 
#50
You forgot to mention he numbers of immigrants since Blair opened the doors.
It is that figure which is putting a terminal strain on the NHS and Education, not to mention every other service and housing.
Would those be the same immigrants who largely run the delivery end of the NHS?

The demographic bulge of an ageing population is not unique to us. It is common to all developed economies.
There is a global problem of lack of cheap willing labour.
Labour was caught napping when most of eastern Europe turned up, but you would be hard put to replace a lot of that labour force now. Industry has got used to it.
 
#51
No it's not. Read that below, it's come home to roost, they take far more than they contribute. The baby boomers contributed. We can not support our own because of these figures, it's plain to see we are going to suffer for years to come.

Immigration Under Labour
The baby boomers contributed to keep the health service of the day going, not today's. Even without immigration (most of whom are working and contributing themselves) the taxes of someone earning a few thousand pounds a year in the 1970s isn't paying for many £200,000+ treatment cycles in 2018...
 
#52
Apart from the waste in the NHS and mismanagement, they could save a fortune by focussing more on preventative medicine

If people were given health checks more regularly, and there was more a push for healthy lifestyle changes a lot of money could be saved in the long term
I agree. But that would mean state sponsored compulsory exercise classes, banning tobacco, banning alcohol, taxing sugar and banning fried food.
Supervised weigh ins with penalties for getting fat.

I can't see many votes in that.
 
#53
To keep it simple ,there seem to be two options:
you bought a nice house in a nice area but you need to stay safe and keep out any undesirables so do you,
1 Buy several large dogs and teach them to gaurd and ward off any undesirables, then pay to place them in your neighbours gardens, whilst keeping a large burly type in your own garden who can go out and smash someone if they get past the dogs.These both need shelter and feeding as well as medical care.
Or,
2 Buy a one off CCTV and burglar alarm system with a minimal maintenanace package.Which you can review should anything happen.

The cost of 1 though keeps rising with inflation, whilst your wages keep falling .It soon becomes quite expensive and questionably unaffordable in the short term compared to 2 .
Which one would best suit your needs. Most people I think would choose 2 with a few choosing 1.
Short termism......would probably win every time.
 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer
#54
Would those be the same immigrants who largely run the delivery end of the NHS?

The demographic bulge of an ageing population is not unique to us. It is common to all developed economies.
There is a global problem of lack of cheap willing labour.
Labour was caught napping when most of eastern Europe turned up, but you would be hard put to replace a lot of that labour force now. Industry has got used to it.
They are on low wages and do not give a net contribution when everything is taken into account. We survived very well without them. Thanks to Blair and Brown we now have to pay for their spending and lavish hand outs to the people they invited in, the very same people that vote for Corbyn.
Why do you think the BREXIT vote went he way it did? To try and control immigration. It's too late the damage is done, I suppose one blames the baby boomers for the housing shortage as well.
 
#55
You’ll want to look at the official forecasts of the Office for Budget Responsibility, then, who have calculated this. Reality Check: Will there be a Brexit dividend?
I read the OBR's Forecast - its basically a guess based on the worst possible scenarios imaginable i.e. based on nothing but conjecture.

Apparently we're going to lose close to 60Bn for 'uncertainty'. Well, that clearly must be true. And in no way could be wrong or just plain imaginary.

And for precedent, how many of the economic forecasts relating to the Brexit vote and subsequent year were correct? The answer = none of them.

So yes, I'm skeptical of a bollocks, politicized 'forecast'.
 
#56
Thing is 10-15 years time a lot of the baby boomers will have shuffled off this planet, but this is a thread about Defence and the role of the Forces as a Tier 1 nation and not the NHS funding.

I agree that a decision needs to be made whether we are a global player or we are purely now for Defence of the UK and it's dependencies, if that is so then that is where the focus needs to lie, anymore Middle East fisticuffs start then unless they activley threaten Gib or RAF Akrotiri then we keep out of it.

If we wish to still play the part of a global policeman then we need to spend to reflect that but you have a major issue when it comes to recruitment and retention, young people don't want to join, they don't see it as a sound career move when the current Civvy job market is very bouyant, so you have a drawn down defence not because of lack of spending but lack of manpower, it is lovely having loads of shiny new kit but pretty pointless if you have no one to operate it.
 
#57
We have a big exit bill to pay, we will not be seeing any financial benefit from Brexit for about ten years, and that's if the economy picks up, it might not in which case stand by for even more cuts and higher taxes from whoever is in power.
I don't disagree, however, his claim was that the tax take from trade with the EU would be 300 million per week worse off that now. Which is likely total bollocks.

There is no evidence to demonstrate that this would be the case, other than 'forecasts' by the usual suspects based on no actual evidence.
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
#58
May clearly doesn't understand the issue. The decision on the nees for tier 1 status is not a MOD one, its a Foreign Office one. Foreign Secretary, what are the foreign policy and diplomatic developments over the next 30 to 50 years that will drive our defence needs?
 
#59
You forgot to mention he numbers of immigrants since Blair opened the doors.
It is that figure which is putting a terminal strain on the NHS and Education, not to mention every other service and housing.
As 'legal' migrants can and do work in the UK and mainly pay taxes as well, the blame lies firmly at the door of buisness who recruit and employ these migrants from 'low wage' economies on wages lower than UK norms. This drives down the UK wage structure and attracts even more migration. Stopping this practice would benefit the UK but not the EU hence Brexit and the 'Immigration Problem' .It may well have been made worse by the New Labour Experiment but was started long before when it was realised that a quick profit dividend could be had 'without the expense of moving operations into these smaller economies, which came later.
On the other hand 'Illegal' migrants can't work and don't pay tax as they are 'illegal' nor can they access public services in the long term unless seeking asylum, which for certain requires tightening up. The arguments put forward by Brexiteer's was too simplistic in my view and was calculated to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Especially if you look at the personalities behind Brexit ,who would want and benefit in keeping the Ponzi scheme going to maintain the increasing profits created. Unfortunately once you run out of 'low cost' economies to exploit the scheme would collapse, perhaps it's best if we were out of it.............
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top