Hannan On Healthcare

[Abstra]

That's because he copies & pastes half his speeches from Shakespeare.

I can find the Prime Numbers in Shakespeare too and Yeah they also add up to forty but I thinking you don't want me too do you!

[Cogs]

What Hannan's done is very clever IMO. By attacking the NHS he's struck at the heart of British political life; undermining 65 years' of British institutionalism is no mean feat. If he's willing to talk about health then anything is up for debate, and it'll inject a bit of much needed adrenalin into the dying British political system.

Basically he's Big Idea politition in an age of small minded managerial style politics, and if he's willing to stir up a bit of trouble to remind the citizens of the UK that they have a choice over how their lives should be run then I'm all for all.

I want to see a lot more of this, because the quicker the UK public sees that the establishment is morally bankrupt the sooner we can have a debate over issues of substance. Something that they've been keen to avoid for years.

You liked it because you agree with him, politically it was probably the most stupid thing I've heard in years. Cameron will be crapping himself about even proposing 'reform' now (much needed, no argument from me there) because the NHS has turned into the 3rd rail of British politics. Ultimately, Hannan has put back his cause.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/au...nhs-dismantling

Here you go, prominent Tories having to publicly run away from ideas they used to agree with. Yeah, real "clever".

Edited August 16, 2009 by Cogs

[gavp]

Basically he's Big Idea politition in an age of small minded managerial style politics, and if he's willing to stir up a bit of trouble to remind the citizens of the UK that they have a choice over how their lives should be run then I'm all for all.

His comments weren't aimed at UK citizens or igniting a debate in the UK. He was on US television picking up a nice juicy paycheck for talking down public healthcare on behalf of the American right and their coroporate sponsors in the health insurance industry. A truly principled man...

[Authoritarian]

You liked it because you agree with him, politically it was probably the most stupid thing I've heard in years. Cameron will be crapping himself about even proposing 'reform' now (much needed, no argument from me there) because the NHS has turned into the 3rd rail of British politics. Ultimately, Hannan has put back his cause.

But I don't agree with him, I would like to see a fully state funded NHS running alongside a private health system based on free market economics.

I'm supportive of Hannan because this country is deperate for political leaders to pull us out of the sorry state that we're in. He wants to talk about the these major issues whilst the Westminster parties want to stick their collective heads in the sand in the vain hope that future growth based on the same bankrupt economics and an inflated housing market will solve everything.

Personally I would like to see the Conservatives, Labour and Lib dems at each others throats fighting over institutions such as the NHS, the banking system and housing; all key in ensuring future prosperity of the country. But at the moment they're in humble agreement which is stifling debate and sidelining alternative views.

Hannan is the antidote to this and I hope he's got a few more tricks up his sleeve to wake Westminster from its slumber.

Edited August 16, 2009 by chefdave

[Authoritarian]

His comments weren't aimed at UK citizens or igniting a debate in the UK. He was on US television picking up a nice juicy paycheck for talking down public healthcare on behalf of the American right and their coroporate sponsors in the health insurance industry. A truly principled man...

Idiot.

While in the States last week, I repeatedly emphasised that I thought their set-up could be improved, that costs were too high, that litigation drove up premiums and that powers could be shifted from big insurance companies to individuals

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielha...-my-final-word/

[Cogs]

Personally I would like to see the Conservatives, Labour and Lib dems at each others throats fighting over institutions such as the NHS, the banking system and housing; all key in ensuring future prosperity of the country. But at the moment they're in humble agreement which is stifling debate and sidelining alternative views.

I guess we'll have to agree to differ, I think he has killed that debate stone dead by going about things the wrong way.

[Guest happy?]

But I don't agree with him, I would like to see a fully state funded NHS running alongside a private health system based on free market economics.

I'm supportive of Hannan because this country is deperate for political leaders to pull us out of the sorry state that we're in. He wants to talk about the these major issues whilst the Westminster parties want to stick their collective heads in the sand in the vain hope that future growth based on the same bankrupt economics and an inflated housing market will solve everything.

Personally I would like to see the Conservatives, Labour and Lib dems at each others throats fighting over institutions such as the NHS, the banking system and housing; all key in ensuring future prosperity of the country. But at the moment they're in humble agreement which is stifling debate and sidelining alternative views.

Hannan is the antidote to this and I hope he's got a few more tricks up his sleeve to wake Westminster from its slumber.

Hannan doesn't want to talk about these issues and it's disingenuous on your part to suggest that he does. He has a zealotry to dismantle the NHS because he hates anything organised collectively, his so-called solutions would financially de-stabilise public health provision in this country to the point that the NHS would be unviable. He knows this, you know it too. He also knows that if he told the truth about the impact of his ideas he would be dismissed - that's why he's afraid to tell the truth - instead dressing-up cant as pragmatism.

[dog]

Hannan doesn't want to talk about these issues and it's disingenuous on your part to suggest that he does. He has a zealotry to dismantle the NHS because he hates anything organised collectively, his so-called solutions would financially de-stabilise public health provision in this country to the point that the NHS would be unviable. He knows this, you know it too. He also knows that if he told the truth about the impact of his ideas he would be dismissed - that's why he's afraid to tell the truth - instead dressing-up cant as pragmatism.

New Labour have groomed the population to go for the man rather than the ball. You are clearly a good student.

[Authoritarian]

Hannan doesn't want to talk about these issues and it's disingenuous on your part to suggest that he does. He has a zealotry to dismantle the NHS because he hates anything organised collectively, his so-called solutions would financially de-stabilise public health provision in this country to the point that the NHS would be unviable. He knows this, you know it too. He also knows that if he told the truth about the impact of his ideas he would be dismissed - that's why he's afraid to tell the truth - instead dressing-up cant as pragmatism.

Its not up to either me or you to guess the motivations of Daniel Hannan because invariably we'll both be wrong. We can only go by what he says and what he does, and it seems you've swallowed Mandlesons take on things rather than consulting the source itself.

If you want to go in for shorthand categorisation by country, the model I've been pushing for is one of personal healthcare accounts, a system most closely approximated in Singapore, whose people enjoy a higher level of healthcare than Britons do while paying considerably less for it. Nor can it be repeated often enough that Singapore - like every developed country - pays for the healthcare of those citizens who can't afford it. No one I know wants a system where the poor go untended. Nor will you find such a system outside the Third World: it really isn't a British peculiarity.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/danielhannan/

Socialists like yourself don't like arguing for the things you believe in because when you follow them to their logical conclusion you end up looking foolish, instead you have to rely on central planning, media manipulation and coercion to implement the policies you want.

Go and check out Labour list.org's economist Duncan Weldon for confirmation of this http://www.labourlist.org/duncan_weldon This is a guy who follows socialist principles to the letter and ands up looking like a tit each time because invariably his solutions involve increased state spending and tax hikes.

As for destabilising public finances, well the NHS is 'unviable'. Thats why we're racking up £200bn plus of debt each year. One way or another its going to be sorted, and I would prefer to have a debate on the issues now rather than wait till these services are taken away because of the realities of public finance.

Edited August 16, 2009 by chefdave

[Authoritarian]

New Labour have groomed the population to go for the man rather than the ball. You are clearly a good student.

Bingo.

[gavp]

Idiot.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielha...-my-final-word/

Total b*ll*cks. I've seen some of the clips on YouTube. Nowehere does he add any caveats about the American system having faults or advocating the Singapore healthcare system*. He justs sits there and nods along as they criticise public healthcare and throws in a lot of waffle about how terrible the NHS is ... rationing ... Marxism ... bladdy-blah ... then throws in some stupid example where one of his rich mates seemingly started flashing the cash around the A&E department in the hope it would get him somewhere** ... add some egracious sycophancy about the US being the land of freedom and how much he loves the constitution ... *rse lick, *rse lick (please invite me back, please).

What a tit.

* Of course he doesn't say this because that's not what they want to hear and if he did then bang goes the US media profile he's so desparately trying to cultivate.

** I'm guessing that the reason this is the only personal anecdote he has is because most of the people he knows go private and a Friday night trip to A & E is the only time they ever use the NHS. Most of the rest of his arguments seem to be based on empty political rhetoric about free markets and efficiency, sprikled with the odd non-secific scare story that appears to be lifted straight out of the tabloids.

Edited August 16, 2009 by gavp

[sun n sea]

Total b*ll*cks. I've seen some of the clips on YouTube. Nowehere does he add any caveats about the American system having faults or advocating the Singapore healthcare system*. He justs sits there and nods along as they criticise public healthcare and throws in a lot of waffle about how terrible the NHS is ... rationing ... Marxism ... bladdy-blah ... then throws in some stupid example where one of his rich mates seemingly started flashing the cash around the A&E department in the hope it would get him somewhere** ... add some egracious sycophancy about the US being the land of freedom and how much he loves the constitution ... *rse lick, *rse lick (please invite me back, please).

What a tit.

* Of course he doesn't say this because that's not what they want to hear and if he did then bang goes the US media profile he's so desparately trying to cultivate.

** I'm guessing that the reason this is the only personal anecdote he has is because most of the people he knows go private and a Friday night trip to A & E is the only time they ever use the NHS. Most of the rest of his arguments seem to be based on empty political rhetoric about free markets and efficiency, sprikled with the odd non-secific scare story that appears to be lifted straight out of the tabloids.

This nicely sums up the situation.

Hannan is a toady little @rse licker who is desperate to be useful to the Yanks- he'll say anything they want him to in order to get a pat on the head and a lollipop from Uncle Sam.

Hannan might feel pleased with himself right now but I bet the voters back home won't forget his sickening sycophancy come voting time.

[mfp123]

Hanan is a good speaker from paper but not so great on the fly whereas ron paul is a great on the fly speaker but not as good as hannan on paper.

Hanan is correct in that the NHS is not the way America should go simply because an NHS costs an arm and a leg.

Health spending as a share of GDP

US 16%

UK 8.4%

Public spending on healthcare (% of total spending on healthcare)

US 45%

UK 82%

Health spending per head

US $7,290

UK $2,992

Practising physicians (per 1,000 people)

US 2.4

UK 2.5

Nurses (per 1,000 people)

US 10.6

UK 10.0

Acute care hospital beds (per 1,000 people)

US 2.7

UK 2.6

Life expectancy:

US 78

UK 80

Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births)

US 6.7

UK 4.8

really? we spend $3000 per citizen in the UK and you think we already spend too much money.

how much do you propose we spend then to make these efficiencies.

we spend less than most industrialised nations on healthcare but you expect comparable results....

to a large extent the nhs achieves maybe 80-90% of the effectiveness of other nations at a lower cost. if we want to match other nations then we have to pay for it.

also bear in mind that the nhs has doubled spending since 1999 and we are still behind all other industrialised nations in terms of spending!

in 1999 healtcare was 6.6% of gdp, so not only does the nhs spend less today than everybody else, it seven coming from an even lower place than everyone else.

so what do people expect for their money then?

if people want better healthcare then they need to be prepared to pay for it instead of just moaning about it.

Edited August 16, 2009 by mfp123

[Authoritarian]

Health spending as a share of GDP

US 16%

UK 8.4%

Public spending on healthcare (% of total spending on healthcare)

US 45%

UK 82%

Health spending per head

US $7,290

UK $2,992

Practising physicians (per 1,000 people)

US 2.4

UK 2.5

Nurses (per 1,000 people)

US 10.6

UK 10.0

Acute care hospital beds (per 1,000 people)

US 2.7

UK 2.6

Life expectancy:

US 78

UK 80

Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births)

US 6.7

UK 4.8

really? we spend $3000 per citizen in the UK and you think we already spend too much money.

how much do you propose we spend then to make these efficiencies.

we spend less than most industrialised nations on healthcare but you expect comparable results....

to a large extent the nhs achieves maybe 80-90% of the effectiveness of other nations at a lower cost. if we want to match other nations then we have to pay for it.

also bear in mind that the nhs has doubled spending since 1999 and we are still behind all other industrialised nations in terms of spending!

in 1999 healtcare was 6.6% of gdp, so not only does the nhs spend less today than everybody else, it seven coming from an even lower place than everyone else.

so what do people expect for their money then?

if people want better healthcare then they need to be prepared to pay for it instead of just moaning about it.

What about PFI?

[dhpcza]

Health spending as a share of GDP

US 16%

UK 8.4%

snip

MFP, do you have a source for these stats? Incase I show some yank and they ask where they came from. Cheers.

[dog]

Total b*ll*cks. I've seen some of the clips on YouTube. Nowehere does he add any caveats about the American system having faults or advocating the Singapore healthcare system*. He justs sits there and nods along as they criticise public healthcare and throws in a lot of waffle about how terrible the NHS is ... rationing ... Marxism ... bladdy-blah ... then throws in some stupid example where one of his rich mates seemingly started flashing the cash around the A&E department in the hope it would get him somewhere** ... add some egracious sycophancy about the US being the land of freedom and how much he loves the constitution ... *rse lick, *rse lick (please invite me back, please).

What a tit.

* Of course he doesn't say this because that's not what they want to hear and if he did then bang goes the US media profile he's so desparately trying to cultivate.

** I'm guessing that the reason this is the only personal anecdote he has is because most of the people he knows go private and a Friday night trip to A & E is the only time they ever use the NHS. Most of the rest of his arguments seem to be based on empty political rhetoric about free markets and efficiency, sprikled with the odd non-secific scare story that appears to be lifted straight out of the tabloids.

Another graduate of New Labour's smear approach to political debate.

It is worth remembering how New Labour came to power back in the 90s. It was their anti sleaze campaign that really destroyed the tories. They came in on a ticket of honest open government and and end to sleaze in public life. The rest is history.

[Angelfish]

Firstly Fox are some strange nationalist right wing TV station whose sole purpose seems to be to scare the crap out of "rich", white suburbia. If we followed their thinking, everone would go to church every Sunday and live in their "happy" gated communities to keep out all the black, immigrants and poor people. Every time I have seen any of their programming I am reminded of all the worst images of the USA. Thankfully, not everone there is as portrayed on Fox.

Some statistics I saw the other day (think it was Sky News) said the UK spent 9% of GDP on Healthcare, whereas the USA spend something like 18%. Whether this is true or not, I cannot believe that a system run by private companies taking out a percentage of profit can be cheaper than the NHS.

Bearing the costs in mind, is the USA system TWICE as good as the UK system? I don't think so.

The NHS has lots of problems undoubtedly - huge amounts of money wasted etc.

You do have the option to go private if you are in a rush or want nice food and TV, but you will see the same doctors (working on the side). Good if you want a hip replacement.

If you have anything seriously wrong with you or if it all goes wrong at the private hospital, NHS it is.

In a civilised country I would rather have a lower standard of care for half the price for 100% of the population.

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

What about PFI?

its off balance sheet financing at its best - does it count

[Cogs]

Another graduate of New Labour's smear approach to political debate.

It is worth remembering how New Labour came to power back in the 90s. It was their anti sleaze campaign that really destroyed the tories. They came in on a ticket of honest open government and and end to sleaze in public life. The rest is history.

Yes I hate it when people just make ad hominem attacks and don't address the content of what others have said.

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

Firstly Fox are some strange nationalist right wing TV station whose sole purpose seems to be to scare the crap out of "rich", white suburbia. If we followed their thinking, everone would go to church every Sunday and live in their "happy" gated communities to keep out all the black, immigrants and poor people. Every time I have seen any of their programming I am reminded of all the worst images of the USA. Thankfully, not everone there is as portrayed on Fox.

Some statistics I saw the other day (think it was Sky News) said the UK spent 9% of GDP on Healthcare, whereas the USA spend something like 18%. Whether this is true or not, I cannot believe that a system run by private companies taking out a percentage of profit can be cheaper than the NHS.

Bearing the costs in mind, is the USA system TWICE as good as the UK system? I don't think so.

The NHS has lots of problems undoubtedly - huge amounts of money wasted etc.

You do have the option to go private if you are in a rush or want nice food and TV, but you will see the same doctors (working on the side). Good if you want a hip replacement.

If you have anything seriously wrong with you or if it all goes wrong at the private hospital, NHS it is.

In a civilised country I would rather have a lower standard of care for half the price for 100% of the population.

NHS one other reason why the uk is going bankrupt

monopolies never ever work - only for the well connected and the bureaucrats

maybe they can inflict a bit more damage first though

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...hs-America.html

A warning that the new swine flu jab is linked to a deadly nerve disease has been sent by the Government to senior neurologists in a confidential letter.

The letter from the Health Protection Agency, the official body that oversees public health, has been leaked to The Mail on Sunday, leading to demands to know why the information has not been given to the public before the vaccination of millions of people, including children, begins.

It tells the neurologists that they must be alert for an increase in a brain disorder called Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), which could be triggered by the vaccine.

GBS attacks the lining of the nerves, causing paralysis and inability to breathe, and can be fatal.

The letter, sent to about 600 neurologists on July 29, is the first sign that there is concern at the highest levels that the vaccine itself could cause serious complications.

It refers to the use of a similar swine flu vaccine in the United States in 1976 when:

* More people died from the vaccination than from swine flu.

* 500 cases of GBS were detected.

* The vaccine may have increased the risk of contracting GBS by eight times.

* The vaccine was withdrawn after just ten weeks when the link with GBS became clear.

* The US Government was forced to pay out millions of dollars to those affected.

Concerns have already been raised that the new vaccine has not been sufficiently tested and that the effects, especially on children, are unknown.

still at least a few nutters on the internet wont be having the jab

[mfp123]

What about PFI?

this is total spending. if you discount private spending then knock off another 20% less for total nhs spending.

the figures are from a newspaper.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/am...re-1772580.html

we may complain about the nhs but in terms of results vs cost the nhs is very effective.

we cant just compare ourselves to other nations because quite simply we spend less.

if we want to improve results by 10-20% we need to invest an extra 10-20%.

[Injin]

Pointless debate.

The NHS is doomed because the UK government is doomed and the US can't nationalise theirs because they are also doomed.

Broke people can't do shit.

All this dog and pony show is for is to steal a bit more before the inevitable end. Hannan will have been given his wedge..and that's all he's in it for, just like the rest of them.

[mfp123]

also when people in the US talk about rationing its not rationing, its prioritising.

prioritising in terms of need not money.

its based on a system that poor person has just as much right to healthcare as a rich person.

furthermore the US system does ration, (not prioritise), as your level of treatment is based on money.

you choose different healthcare plans to suit your budget. if your illness is not covered by your plan you dont get any treatment. or,more often the case due to technicalities and under insurance ,quite often your coverage will only pay a proportion of treatment.

so if you dont have the appropriate coverage for say certain cancer care, the insurer will pay for a certain amount of treatment and then no more, the rest you pay for yourself.

or theyll say well pay the first $50,000 of the operation, the rest you pay yourself.

with insurance youre a statistic like a car, not a person.

its as simple as that.

in terms of freedom of choice, once you do get seriously ill, you're in trouble because your now seen as a risk, and no other insurer will touch you with a bargepole.

so when you get seriously ill there is no choice, youre stuck with the plan you are on for the foreseeable future with the same insurance provider.

Edited August 16, 2009 by mfp123

[dhpcza]

Hannan will have been given his wedge..and that's all he's in it for, just like the rest of them.

Sometimes, you are remarkably sensible.

[Authoritarian]

this is total spending. if you discount private spending then knock off another 20% less for total nhs spending.

the figures are from a newspaper.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/am...re-1772580.html

we may complain about the nhs but in terms of results vs cost the nhs is very effective.

we cant just compare ourselves to other nations because quite simply we spend less.

if we want to improve results by 10-20% we need to invest an extra 10-20%.

Nowhere near where it should be though based on spending. Quoting your previous figures in terms of %GDP gives a distorted view because of the house price based consumption experienced under Labour. He's a better measure: total spending.

Labour has increased spending on the NHS from £35bn to £104bn since 1997.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/polit...rs-1770989.html

Is the NHS three times better now than it was in 1997? Are there 3 times the number of beds, hospitals and nurses?

Hannan's right to attack the NHS as being a behemoth because its exactly that, and billions could be trimmed from the budget without a decrease in service if the political will was there. However the Americans are pretty dumb for lapping this stuff up. They pay a lot in tax so in return they should demand decent services, that includes a high quality health service because the benefits from having one increase productivity as a whole. They're happy to demand quality in the private sector so why not the public?

Edited August 16, 2009 by chefdave