12 2 mins 8 yrs

First, just consider the facts!

Patients are being forced to spend more than eight hours in ambulances as overcrowded accident and emergency departments struggle to cope with increasing demand.

Eight hours!! In an ambulance, and that’s BEFORE you get admitted to the queue inside the hospital A+E. It’s all too obvious that the socialised healthcare model of the NHS is failing the most important people – the patients. If you are so unwell that you need to travel to hospital by ambulance in the first place then one assumes immediate medical treatment is required. So the revelation that some patients are being kept eight hours in the back of the very ambulance that brings them to the hospital is just one more searing indictment of the NHS system. The solution is simple. If the NHS A+E cannot provide a timely service for those in dire need, allow others to try. It’s time that the accident and emergency system was opened up to private operators and that Government fast tracked this concept. Either that, or we accept that people will die in ambulances because there is nowhere for them to go!

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

12 thoughts on “ENVY OF THE WORLD UPDATE…

  1. This is like selling your slates and then complaining the roof leaks. But hey, decision makers can always convince themselves that half the people can successfully carry out twice the work with no impact upon the service.

  2. You spend less on health care per capita than your peers Sweden, Belgium, France, Germany, Austria, Canada, Denmark and Switzerland do.

    And a lot less than the US, but I leave that out here since the US system is bloated.

    The Swiss spend more than 50% per capita on health care than you do.

    And you act all surprised to hear that their system is superior?

    Part of your problem is that you’ve apparently starved the HHS of the revenue that they’d need to do a better job. Spend some money for Christ’s sake.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_%28PPP%29_per_capita

  3. Phantom,

    The figure quoted as ‘our expenditure’ on our health system bears little relationship to the actual amount that is really spent.

    Let me explain just one reason why that figure is false.

    Since the 1990’s we have had a system of financing infrastructure known as ‘the Private Finance Initiative’, a.k.a. the PFI. Originally a Tory idea it was developed into the biggest of tax avoidance scams ever seen by Blair and Brown. Yes, you read that correctly, – it was used to finance the building hospitals, schools and other high cost infrastructure, and all without appearing on the States books.

    A hospital is needed, it costs X amount, tenders are put out to the private sector. the private sector borrower gets an interest free loan from the government, and as it is a loan it doesn’t appear in the books as an expense. That comes later when the structure is built and the State rents it back on a long term basis, – some thirty or forty years, at a guaranteed rent. The rental costs are minimal in the short term when compared to the costs of building, and eveyone goes home happy.

    The company that owns it then proceeds to deposit said rentals in banks ‘offshore’, i.e. – no tax, – and no questions asked, and even now are given special treatment.

    The govenment looks good at year end and friends and aquaintenances are happy little fellas, and of course, keeping a vacancy ‘on the board’ for when their most favourite Minister ‘of all time’ decides he is retiring from public life ‘for family reasons’.

    At the last count there were many thousands of such projects started in the Blair years, and that is why we now have a problem, – a large percentage of the expense is being paid out in rentals.

    The above is a very brief description of how the scam works, and that most of the companies are foreign owned doesn’t make the situation any more tolerable. Very little of that rental spend finds its way into UK pockets.

  4. Good description Ernest,
    and sadly although New Labour implemented it, it was a Tory idea.
    Of course it shows again the sheer CONTEMPT shown by politicians of all colours towards the electorate.
    Whether it be a government sending our young to fight in un-winnable wars or throwing open our borders to all and sundry, our governments are like pimps living off immoral earnings..

  5. But aren’t such arrangements increasingly popular worldwide, in public but also private settings?

    For highways / bridges / commercial real estate / power plants / airliners?

    This can take the form of sale/ leaseback, or, it looks like you are speaking of build finance /leaseback?

    I’m not sure that there is anything necessarily wrong with it?

  6. ” I’m not sure that there is anything necessarily wrong with it?”
    What’s wrong with it is this:
    A political party puts out a manifesto about how it plans to tackle publicly perceived problems such as law and order, taxes, employment and defence etc.
    What they don’t tell you about is the little deals and concessions they’ve cooked up with backers, big businesses, banks and multinationals which will either involve public freedoms or public finances.
    That’s all in the small print and YOU or I won’t find out about it until they come to power.
    It’s a bit like a Ponzi scheme, except the same group gets fleeced over and over again.

  7. I’m sure that they are guilty as sin on lots of things, but using the financing tool whereby a private company builds a capital asset and then you rent or lease it from them is actually a good idea. At times anyway.

  8. Phantom,

    It’s fine if it is indigenous companies doing the building, in the case of the UK, the majority of such lease-back is with foreign owned companies, who pay little or no tax to the UK. The amounts involved are staggering. Celebs of sport and entertainment also avail themselves of a similar scheme whereby they set up a foreign company and pay little or no tax to the UK.

    It is just another form of mortgaging the future. It would be fine if the profits and the taxes thereon were recycled back through our own economy, we might then see some real growth here, as it is we get no advantage from such a scheme.

    Economic growth is all about doing profitable business, usually manufacturing, or anything which may show some sort of profit, unfortutantely, this sort of government spending is guaranteedd to show a loss, all it guarantees is a rise in future inflation because the government, when unable to raise taxes further they will resort to a substantial devaluation of the currency.

    PFI sounds a good idea, but it is all too easily used and manipulated for tax evasion, particularly when the likes of Blair and Brown get involved.

  9. ” a capital asset and then you rent or lease it from them is actually a good idea. At times anyway. ”

    Maybe.
    If the people who are going to have to foot the bills and pay the money back, actually knew about it in the first place..

  10. You need to rationalize your tax system and so does all the other big countries.

    International companies have learned how to play the fiddle all too well as respects what they charge themselves for ” transfer pricing ” and can make the income in a given country be whatever they please.

  11. True Phantom,
    but when your own elected government becomes part of the deals and “special agreements” that is a serious corruption of the relationship between the people and the government.

Comments are closed.