www.theguardian.com
www.hulldailymail.co.uk
The graph started in 2013-14. I couldn't comment on data I didn't have.I note that you haven't responded to the previous question I posed. Might that be because the answer is uncomfortable for what you're attempting to achieve?
Just in case you've been busy, here it is again:
Can you share with us the following information please:
1, what proportion of GDP does the US spend on healthcare?
2, what proportion of GDP does the UK spend on healthcare?
You're also exercised about the amount of money spent on the NHS over the past eight years, and using this to forward the agenda that a public service is 'inefficient'. Now, let's have a look at two bits of data on this. I'll add some analysis to it too -- I'm sure you'll disagree with this, but we'll leave it up to others to form their judgment. So, first:
The NHS budget and how it has changed
What is the NHS budget and how is it funded? Find out in our nutshell.www.kingsfund.org.uk
Osborne's (dreadful) austerity policy starved the NHS for three years -- following on from an impressive upturn in funding from New Labour (although this isn't accounted for in this graph). You conveniently ignore these three years, and want to start your analysis at the point that spending did actually start to increase. The NHS (and all healthcare systems in the 'developed' world) need extra resources each year, because there's an increased demand -- estimated at 4%pa -- due to an ageing population. So, by your starting point, the NHS was well shy of resources, and the government had to start firefighting, which accounts for most of the increases over the following years (13/14 to 19/20). There was then a massive spike in 20/21, which was for Covid. Included in that extra amount was the creation of separation between CV and non-CV treatment in hospitals, Nightingales, PPE, mass testing, provision of free tests to the public, the cost of treating a 'once in a century pandemic', and so on.
Given that demand has increased 4% year on year for 12 years, and the cost of CV, the extra funding really isn't that much, and way, way behind what it should be if supply were to meet demand.
Now, let's also factor this chart in from the Nuffield Trust, which I don't think requires too much analysis (see: https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/ne...-and-future-of-government-spending-on-the-nhs)
Changes in health spending per capita, adjusted for demographic changes
Time period, political party Average annual change in per capita health spending (adjusted) 1979–1997, Conservatives +2.03% 1997–2010, Labour +5.67% 2010–2015, Con/Lib coalition -0.07% 2015–2021, Conservatives -0.03% 2021–2024, Conservatives – committed spend +2.05%
There are countless reports of vendors on approved lists not getting calls returned. There was a clear agenda to use an emergency to reward connected individuals.Interesting that a company with a history of PPE provision was ignored and some with no history of PPE were awarded contracts via the VIP fast lane.Hull firm side-stepped government to protect countless lives
Arco supplied PPE to nearly 300 hospitals and health trusts at the height of the pandemic
You would have thought the first stop when looking for PPE in an epidemic would be with a company within the industry. I guess it’s who you know
Most of the Covid era cabinet should be sat in prison cells. But there will be no justice. The age of justice is long, long behind us.
Interesting there corruption going on in the EU right now concerning Qatar, its being dealt with promptly.
I just take it as an absolute given that they will get off Scott free. It’s almost not worth reading the stories. Which I imagine is their whole idea.
I do wonder if any of the civil servants should share the blame. It hasn't really been made clear whether the ministers were solely in charge of procurement of PPE and made decisions for all the contracts, or whether the ministers were doing what they could to source extra supplies while expecting the civil servants to deal with existing companies. I suspect the latter.
www.theguardian.com
No. The Tory cabinet side stepped established PPE companies and fast tracked their chums into millions of pounds worth of useless PPE contracts.
goodlawproject.org
The current iteration of the Tory party main objective is not enrich themselves and their mates. The greed is endless, they can't help themselves, its in their DNA.And not only do they give contracts to their chums and risk the lives of tens of thousands of essential key workers, including mine and my colleagues, but now they double down on their corruption…..
REVEALED: Tory donor’s company awarded £4.5 million Government contract to take care of mountain of unusable PPE waste….
REVEALED: Tory donor’s company awarded £4.5 million Government contract to take care of mountain of unusable PPE waste - Good Law Project
A £4.5 million Government contract has been handed to a company headed up by a major Conservative Party donor to dispose of unused PPE, Good Law Project can reveal.
I absolutely f***ing detest the Tory’s.
And if they can blame any of the mess on civil servants/public sector workers to try to absolve themselves they will.
And sadly, some people believe them.
www.theguardian.com
That is a measure of how delusional/sneaky the Johnson-loving billionaire actually is.
Of course there will be more pro-Johnson cronies to come for the HOL. Still no list, and it seems Truss has one too (no thats not a joke)
The very same; also, the Party which is also threatening more anti-trade union laws to prevent workers standing-up for themselves in an era of poverty wages, boardroom greed, and high inflation!