Labour cares about the NHS so much...

Generali

michaels wrote: »

Combining the health and education topics, anyone like to hazard a guess as to whether there is correlation between a public school education and above average life expectancy...

Any ideas if there are confounding factors such as income being linked to both the likelihood of going to public school and longevity?

Causation isn't correlation.

michaels

The word correlation was chosen carefully.

zagubov

PaulF81 wrote: »

Exactly. Combined with every Tom, !!!!!! and harry expecting to live to 150 with a limitless NHS budget.

Some sour news. The budget isnt unlimited and average life expectancies are going to fall.

They're increasing in the UK by 5 hours every day.

Still at least our life expectacy under the much-derided "socialised medicine" will hit 82 almost 250 years before free market America's will. :beer:
Japan and France have reached it already.

Mr_Mumble

zagubov wrote: »

They're increasing in the UK by 5 hours every day.

Still at least our life expectacy under the much-derided "socialised medicine" will hit 82 almost 250 years before free market America's will. :beer:
Japan and France have reached it already.

80% of Japan's hospitals are privatised whereas America's health system swung to mainly government run around the year 2000.

Life expectancy has very little to do with 'healthcare' anyhow.

Generali

michaels wrote: »

The word correlation was chosen carefully.

Fair enough, I should've known better really.

Maybe my response should have been, "Why does a correlation matter when there are clearly confounding factors that effectively rule out a causal link?"

zagubov

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

80% of Japan's hospitals are privatised whereas America's health system swung to mainly government run around the year 2000.

Life expectancy has very little to do with 'healthcare' anyhow.

It's got a lot to do with standard of living (higher in the US) and equality of incomes and spending on health. Sorry, America.

Just about all of Europe beats the US for child mortality. In fact for most health figures Europe beats the US.

At in our case less than half the cost. We really really don't need to be more like the US in health matters.

Canada maybe, I don't know but I bet they're outperforming the US.;)

And lets noit get muddies about who runs it and who owns it.The US doesn't run enough of it; Japan does despite owning fewer of the actual hospitals.

Tsujima

I don't see it as the Government's fault; they just take the public brunt of the issues at hand.

They can't know of every issue under the sun because to put it simply, each hospital has their own management system, and each system may fail because of the people below them not taking due care or taking responsibility.

I see all governments as the dog that people blame when really it's due to personal trait issues of being scared to ask or blatantly irresponsible.

From what I understand, those hospitals will know it's their fault and not the Government's and so they will take the actions necessary. The Government only has power because we emotionally give it so.

michaels

zagubov wrote: »

And lets noit get muddies about who runs it and who owns it.The US doesn't run enough of it; Japan does despite owning fewer of the actual hospitals.

And this is the whole arguement made by those who dare to question the cannonisation the NHS; the govt should make provision available according to need but the state providing the provision directly is not necessarily the only model than can produce effective results.

(There may also be a further issue that a small degree of 'co-payments' might encourage individuals to use health care efficiently and take preventative measures)

michaels

Generali wrote: »

Fair enough, I should've known better really.

Maybe my response should have been, "Why does a correlation matter when there are clearly confounding factors that effectively rule out a causal link?"

And the answer to that question is that it might have been a little bone chucked in to see if any of the usual suspects would take it up and run with it

zagubov

michaels wrote: »

And this is the whole arguement made by those who dare to question the cannonisation the NHS; the govt should make provision available according to need but the state providing the provision directly is not necessarily the only model than can produce effective results.

(There may also be a further issue that a small degree of 'co-payments' might encourage individuals to use health care efficiently and take preventative measures)

I've a fondness for the rather complicated system they have in Singapore . It's the 20th most effective and also the 20th cheapest system in the world.It's mix of ownership and delivery styles and involves copayments, an easyjet pay for luxuries if you want them and state coverage of dreaded diseases.