Friday, August 14, 2009

Criticising the NHS is not treason

(Mr and Mrs Kitchen are away)

You know there's an election looming when the Tories and Labour start battling for the dubious honour of being the "party of the NHS". The deification of this creaking, bloated and massively over-rated money pit has always mystified me. But its reputation as an untouchable and glorious institution is set in stone and, for better or worse, it's here to stay. As the hysteria over Dan Hannan's comments shows, no debate can be had about socialised healthcare in this country beyond the spastic yelp of how we should pay nurses more money and refuse treatment to people we don't like. 

The most pathetic attack on Hannan came from Andy Burnham, whose resemblance to a ventriloquist's dummy in mascara gets more uncanny with every passing day. 
"I would almost feel... it is unpatriotic because he is talking in foreign media and not representing, in my view, the views of the vast majority of British people and actually, I think giving an unfair impression of the National Health Service himself, a British representative on foreign media."

He said Mr Hannan's words were an "insult" to the 1.4m NHS workers and "he should not be voicing those views in the foreign media in my view".

Come off it, Burnham. It's a little thing we call free speech. Patriotism doesn't come into it. Do the words 'scoundrel' and 'last refuge' mean anything to you, unctuous little turd that you are? 

When dickheads like Burnham resort to appealing to national pride, you know the argument's been lost. You may recall the equally hopeless Tom Harris using the same tactic earlier in the year when Hannan tore into our thieving, half-blind bastard of a Prime Minister:
What was truly repugnant about his speech was the total absence of any sense of patriotism...

Gordon Brown isn’t just Labour’s prime minister; he’s Britain’s prime minister, and for any UK politician to launch such a disgraceful, personal attack on his country’s leader — in a foreign country — is nothing short of disgraceful. 

Or, to put it another way: "We all know the NHS is shit and that Gordon Brown's a cunt, but let's not tell the rest of the world, eh?". Well, fuck that. Hannan was right then and he's right now. 

Liberal Conspiracy, frothing at the mouth at Hannan's attack on the "largest, most respected, and most valued of British institutions", has also been swept away with a sense of burning patriotism:
Watching Daniel Hannan speaking as a supposed representative for Britain on Fox News, bleating about how our country has been rendered feral and crippled by the NHS is enough to raise a sudden, unexpected swell of patriotism normally reserved for the success of a British icon on the global stage or spectacular sporting defeats.

It's all very touching. Perhaps now would be a good time to start a war. But instead of resorting to knee-jerk patriotism and sending nauseating messages via fucking Twitter, how about looking at what Hannan actually said? (His two main interviews can be seen here and here). 

1. The UK has "bad survival rates".

Cancer survival rates in Britain are among the lowest in Europe, according to the most comprehensive analysis of the issue yet produced.

Survival rates are based on the number of patients who are alive five years after diagnosis and researchers found that, for women, England was the fifth worst in a league of 22 countries. Scotland came bottom. Cancer experts blamed late diagnosis and long waiting lists.

Whereas the USA has the best cancer survival rates:
American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56 percent for European women. 

American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent — compared to only 47 percent for European men.

I think we have to chalk this up as one for Hannan.

2. "People who have conditions that they try to buy drugs for independently are told that their whole treatment will be stopped."

The husband of a woman who died of cancer but was denied free NHS treatment because the couple chose to pay privately from their savings for a drug to prolong her life yesterday urged the government to change its guidelines.

Linda O'Boyle, 64, who had bowel cancer, is believed to be the first person to die after fighting for the right for top-up NHS treatment alongside privately purchased cancer medicine - so-called co-payment. Six other patients are launching a legal action to allow NHS patients to top up their care with private drugs.

Dr Crippen has other examples of this disgusting policy, even if he does think that Hannan is a prick

Two nil, Hannan.

3. "We have 1.4 million people employed by the NHS. It is the third biggest employer in the world."

From The Times:
NHS is world's biggest employer after Indian rail and Chinese Army

And from the Daily Mail:

Between 1999 and 2005, the number of NHS staff increased from 1.1million to 1.4million, up 24 per cent. Growth was fastest amongst senior managers - up 62 per cent over that period, with the number of doctors increasing by 30 per cent and nurses by 23 per cent.

Or, to put it another way, there is an NHS employee for every 43 people. And with a budget of £90 billion, it costs each British citizen £1,500 a year to keep the thing going. That works out at about £70,000 in a working life.

In exchange for this eye-watering sum of money, you will be told how to live and may be refused surgery if the powers at be don't like your lifestyle - even if all you did was break your ankle. And don't expect a refund.
Smoker refused operation on broken ankle

A smoker is facing years of pain after an NHS hospital refused to set his broken ankle unless he gives up cigarettes.

John Nuttall, 57, needs the operation to fix the ankle he broke in three places two years ago and which was not healed by a plaster cast.

Mr Nuttall, from Newlyn, west Cornwall, said: "I have begged them to operate but they won't. I have tried my hardest to give up smoking but I can't.

"I want to warn other smokers. We have paid our National Insurance stamps all our lives and now we are being shut out of the NHS."

Three nil Hannon.

4. "Most of those 1.4 million people are administrators"

In September there were 408,200 qualified nurses in the NHS; 25,700 midwives; 34,010 GPs; 34,900 consultants; and 49,200 other hospital doctors. There were also 1,450 school nurses; and 39,900 managers.

The total of employees above comes to 593,360 - less than half of the 1.4 million total. What do the rest do? Some will be administrators, but some will be cleaners, caterers or any number of other things. There are, unquestionably, a fuck load of administrators working in the NHS, but to say that "most" of the 1.4 million are administrators is an exaggeration. 


5. There are "huge waiting lists".

From the BBC:

8 months for cataract surgery

11 months for a hip replacement

12 months for a knee replacement

5 months to repair a slipped disc

5 months for a hernia repair

These figures come from the BBC's report of 27 May 2004. If you look at this interview with Hannan, you will see the same figures on the screen. Notice, however, that Fox News have changed the date to 27 May 2009. Proof if proof were needed that Fox News isn't always the most reliable news source.

Have things changed much since 2004? It's hard to say. According to the National Center for Policy Analysis:

Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K  

Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer. All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada. In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.

Reliable statistics on US waiting times are hard to find. As for the UK having huge waiting times, it depends on what you call 'huge'. The average waiting time for inpatients is just over two months, and just over a month for outpatients, according to the NHS. There's no doubt that waiting lists have come down under Labour, even though it took a doubling in NHS spending to do it.

According to the ludicrous Andy Burnham, there are no waiting lists at all:
“We have no waiting lists now in the NHS and people have full choice of NHS hospitals.”

Burnham's a gobshite and Hannan is basically correct. 4-1.

6. "I could tell you horror stories about elderly people left starving in wards."

Patients left to starve on NHS wards

The number of NHS patients suffering from malnourishment as they leave hospital has nearly doubled, new figures show. Around 140,000 patients were discharged after being inadequately fed on NHS wards last year, statistics obtained by the Conservatives reveal...

Michael Summers of the Patients' Association said: "Families tell us that when visiting elderly relatives in hospital in particular they noticed how malnourished they are.

"Nurses are so rushed off their feet that it is no surprise that patients end up malnourished. We have heard stories of elderly people who haven't had a meal all day because they have just been overlooked. The food is just taken away when the patient hasn't been able to eat any of it.

"It is a scandal in the 21st century - it ought never to happen."


7. "We have far fewer GPs per head of population than you have in North America"

Statistics vary enormously for this. Take your pick out of this lot. All but one agree that the USA has more doctors per head than the UK, but to say that we have "far fewer" is an exaggeration.

Hannan finishes 5-2 up by my reckoning. One or two exaggerations but nothing that warrants treating him like a child-molesting war criminal. 

Let's take a deep breath. A fairly obscure Conservative politician with a voice like Richard Madeley has pointed out some draw-backs in our health system. He's not John the Baptist, but he's not Lord Haw Haw either. 

Have a good weekend.


Anonymous said...

...but handing over power to Brussels isn't treason.

Anonymous said...

The figures on doctors are incorrect. WHO lists the UK as 2.5 doctors per 1,000 vs 2.4 per 1,000 in the US. We have, per head of population, marginally more doctors.

It is however possible to skew the American figures depending on how you define "doctor". There is an American tendency to designate people as doctors who would not hold that status in the UK (or, indeed, in most of Europe).

Sabina said...

Those who called Mr. Hannan's remarks treasonous took a leaf out of Nancy Peolsi's book.
She's calling people who oppose the health care bill traitors.
Wrong, bitch, it's traitorous to stifle freedom of speech!

John A said...

As an outsider - only ventured out of the US twice (to Canada: does that count?) in over sixty years - I think the NHS does a fair job. But for all their respective flaws, I prefer the current US system. We may tend, from some viewpoints, to over-do things. But, well, when my doctor wanted me to have an EKG and an MRI, he was able to get both scheduled within two days...

- - -

"If he [Pres. Obama] really could preserve all that is good about the present U.S. system, while making it available to everyone regardless of income, I would wish him all the luck in the world.

"The President is discovering that people are apt to want to defend and preserve what they have. The same is true of we British and our lumbering health service. The difference, though, is that what the Americans have is, for the most part, better than the NHS."

Costello said...

Crippen is usually an excellent read. However he has made a bit of a twat of himself with his take on Hannan and the Americans obscene enough to protest the government assuming control of another aspect of their lives.

Pat said...

Whilst I'm aware that the establishment is convinced of the universal love of the NHS, I'm not wholly convinced that they're right. Might be worth finding out.
Of course if we're to have a debate about anything a level playing field would be useful- so if we can get rid of the excessive influence of the BBC (say by putting public service broadcasting out to tender, and prohibiting any one organisation from running more than two channels), and break up the state near monopoly on education- a thoroughgoing voucher scheme should work- we should have a greater chance of accessing the wisdom of the British people.
By the way- as you must be aware- the smoker refused treatment had actually paid through tobacco duty more than any non smoker- he should be entitled to extra treatment.

Leg-iron said...

The main parties love the NHS because it contains 1.4 million voters plus associated family and dependents. Let's say 3 million votes at stake here.

It's not the NHS the're looking after. It's their own interests.

Nothing more complex than that.

Wossat? said...

Being labelled unpatriotic by some Nu-Labour fuck who's party is selling us out to the Eurocunts is surely taking a barrel load of piss...

Anonymous said...

In reference to the second point, patients no longer lose their medical treatment if they opt to pay for drugs not available on the NHS. This has been the case since the Richards Review last year.

Now, the situation is that someone can pay for extra drugs but they also have to pay for an extra expense or cost incurred by them, including doctors, nurses, hospital rooms, etc... Not an ideal situation and still needs changing but they DO NOT lose their entitlement to medical treatment any longer.

thefrollickingmole said...

Lots and lots of vested interests in the NHS, or are we supposed to believe thats only the greedy insurers??

I was reading China has no welfare system to speak of, and savings rates are around 80% of peoples pay.
Im not sure on your Pommie figures but the average Australian has savings of nearly nothing (bar compulsory superannuation).

Anyone care to hazard a guess as to the connection to the 2?

If you live in a welfare state its rational not to save, the local jobcentre will penalise you if you have.
If you live in a state with no welfare you will be firmly focussed on putting aside enough for the hard times.

That includes your medical expenses.
Welfare is killing the west.

Rob said...

£1500 per citizen, so over £3,000 per working person? Imagine the health insurance you could purchase with that. And you will have control, not some socialist fanatic.

Frank Davis said...

I'd like to just say that I like Tom Harris. It's pretty hard to find a likeable Labour MP these days. Particularly one who didn't vote for the smoking ban, and who supports the Amend The Smoking Ban campaign.

The objection to Hannan, then as now, amounted to "Not in front of the chiiildren!" It doesn't really wash, because the internet is breaking down the barriers between us and the other chiiildren of the world. In this sense, Hannan is arguably a rather more savvy, globe-trotting politician than Tom Harris, whose interests lie more in British railways and Dr Who. Which is one of the reasons why he's rather likeable.

Von Mises said...

I wish people would ingore the piece of sophistry that the NHS is free. It isn't. It costs. You pay taxation to fund this ponzi scheme (rather like the entire ponzi public sector). To those who want the NHS to remain... fine. You fund out. You keep paying taxation. To those of us who want to CHOOSE our own health care, let us opt out and give us our taxes back. Let those who fund the NHS use it and let us who want to choose avoid it. That is true democracy, not the ''my version of democracy is best'' so loved by the Left

Tom Harris said...

I feel I must protest! What happened to the very eye-catching "torn cardboard" design on this site? Much prefer it to the new one.

That's it. I'm off for a fag now...

Anonymous said...

The biggest problem (only problem ?) with the NHS is that it cannot be discussed.

Huw Waters said...

Perhaps some of those 'administrators' are Speech Therapists, Radiographers, Physiotherapists or anyone else holding a BSc who do an important complimentary job.

My opinion has always been that the management of communication between departments has been poor. For example, between a doctor and the x-ray department.

As for those complaining about the wait regarding the NHS, nothing stops you from getting health insurance here in the UK and going to someone like BUPA.

Span Ows said...

Dear Filthy Smoker, I must say you have pulled up all the main points and the hysterical shrieking from the left is shameful...almost on a par with some worried Conservatives taking the same view as the shriekers.

Some really bitchy leftie luvvie shriekers have left comments (on more than a few sites) clearly written by complete morons even go as far as saying they hope DH gets cancer or any life threatening condition and then the nurses spit on him...I despair.

Regarding your post you do DH a disfavour, 5-2 but in the two points against he wasn't wrong on either count (just not EXACTLY right) so depending on the ref the score should be 7-0 but for a couple of dodgy penalty descisions.

Mr Potarto said...

"As for those complaining about the wait regarding the NHS, nothing stops you from getting health insurance here in the UK and going to someone like BUPA."

Excellent! So I'll be getting a refund from my taxes for my part in the cost of the NHS and I can buy private health care?


Then there is something stopping me - the bill for the NHS!

Joe Public said...

Your very selective Torygraqph quote on survival rates (item 1) is disingenuous, DK

If you'd continued reading their explanation why the two countries' statistics differ, you'd conclude in favour of the NHS.

[Millions of the Stateside poor can't afford cancer tests or treatment, so statistically don't appear to have 'failed'; in the UK the NHS proactively attempts to save all sufferers.]

Anonymous said...

this isn't DK, Joe Idiot.

the a&e charge nurse said...

No, not treason, more like mandatory amongst libertarians?

The Filthy Smoker said...

Ah, A & E charge nurse, I've been expecting you. Nothing to say about the substance of the issue this evening?

Joe Public - no, the article doesn't say that. Not only does it not say that, it doesn't even mention the USA. And as the 'Posted by The Filthy Smoker' heading would suggest, I'm not DK, who is sunning it up in Greece with his good lady wife. You should have gone to Specsavers.

the a&e charge nurse said...

Yes, I heard the Devils marvelous news - I wonder if marriage will mellow him?

My only point my dear FS was that most of the posters here tend to have very little to say that is complimentary about the NHS or indeed any other state provided service - hence the vague amusement that the NHS should be depicted as some sort of sacred cow that is beyond reproach.

We can argue the stats all day long but the bottom line is the NHS produces slightly better outcomes (overall) than the US for less money.
Now I'm not knocking the Yanks - their system is a matter for them, although I think Obama is on the right the track.

The privatisation by stealth agenda within the NHS has largely been below the radar of the general public but if we look at PFI and ISTCs they have hardly covered themselves in glory despite being run by private providers.

For what its worth I suspect the NHS is in danger from going under apart perhaps from a few core services - I can't help thinking this will merely result in exchanging one set of old problems for a new set.

One thing we can never escape is the British 'mentality' although it remains a very slippery concept to define.

Chalcedon said...

In the US, if you have an MD you are a medical doctor. You can practice medicine. All medics in the US are post graduates. Here you can practice with an MB ChB and MD is also a post graduate qualification. You have to be registered with the GMC to practice in the UK. We just don't have enough med school places to cope. I went to med school in 1971 and there were 120 students in my year! We still don't ptoduce enough. If it wasn't for Indian and Pakistani medics we would be bolloxed!

Constantly Furious said...

Congratulations, DK, on being the #2 Libertarian Blog in the Total Politics survey. That well known Libertarian Guido Fawkes pipped you to the post.

Here's the full list of the top 20, with links, as voted for by the admiring millions.

It'd be great if everybody on the list - specially the big boys at the top - did the same; either copy the post, or link to it from your own blog.

A little bit of mutual backslapping and link-love, eh?

Gareth said...

"Reliable statistics on US waiting times are hard to find. As for the UK having huge waiting times, it depends on what you call 'huge'. The average waiting time for inpatients is just over two months, and just over a month for outpatients, according to the NHS. There's no doubt that waiting lists have come down under Labour, even though it took a doubling in NHS spending to do it."

Define 'waiting list'. Does the clock start when you get referred or is it consultation to operation? In my experience you get your operation reasonably quickly, but only after a long wait to see someone about it.

Similar is true for GP appointments. The diktat went out that waiting times had to be lowered to 48 hours, and lo they were. By not allowing people to make appointments more than two days in advance.

Similar is true for some A&E departments and aiming to 'treat' people within 4 hours. There have been suspicions for years that some A&E departments were gaming the system - finding ways to meet the target as cheaply as possible but not actually treating people any quicker.

Lola said...

1,500 per citizen over a working life of 44 years times a reasonable compound investment growth factor of say 6% would be about £300,000. For most people the big costs of healthcare are getting old, and in the last two to five years of their lives. £300,000 should be enough to pay for that. For other events insurance can be used. And for those (like me) with un-commercially-insurable chronic conditions the State can act as insurer of last resort.

There is absolutely no argument that I can see to keep the nationalsied system going, nor do I necessarily want the US system.

But going from here to there is going to be a very difficult sell, politically.

(NB. The 1500 per citizen is a blind. Only the taxpayers in private wealth creating business pay any income tax as such. So it is probably more like 3000 to 4500 per taxpayer.)

curly15 said...

The ludicrous Burnham is clearly bored this summer - opportunist twat!

FlipC said...

You do a slight disservice to Joe Public, read the exact words again "after a cancer diagnosis" then read the article you linked to that contained this phrase that states that "In the United States, 85 percent of women aged 25 to 64 years have regular PAP smears, compared with 58 percent in Great Britain."

So imagine 2 women who both contract cervical cancer at exactly the same time one from the UK the other the USA.

The USA woman has regular tests and is diagnosed within a month, she is given treatment but sadly dies after 5 years.

The UK woman doesn't have regular tests and only goes in after a year of problems. She is given treatment but sadly dies after 4 years.

Both woman lived exactly the same length of time after getting cancer, but the statistics will show that USA woman live longer after diagnosis compared to UK woman.

Not trying to attack your entire article or state that's how they measure; you just got to watch statistics - they can bite.

thefrollickingmole said...

One point missed by many is the incredible inflation of the costs of being a medical professional.

I am unsure of how much malpractice "costs" a doctor in the UK, but in the US it is so bad unnecessary cesareans are performed at the drop of a hat.
When the legal profession has infiltrated a sector so badly it distorts medical care, thats a huge issue.
"...Total cesarean and primary cesarean rates are currently as high as 30% of total births in the United States, up from 4.5% in 1965. In 2003, 76% of all American obstetricians reported at least 1 litigation event, with a median award of $2.3 million for medical negligence in childbirth. A common accusation is failure to perform cesarean in a timely manner, and concern has been voiced that obstetricians as a result are turning to cesarean delivery at any sign of complication..."

Yet apparently not touched on by Obamas "reforms".

Your NHS is a bureaucratic health system, the Yanks is a legalistic one. In reality immeasurable resources are wasted in both models.

And (I assume its improved) lets not forget the running jokes about British teeth...Nhs?

OFMN said...

What a conveniently bullshit-laden argument, ignoring the masses of poor people who don't even have a chance to get onto a ward to be among the minority of people who 'starve' (although their skin is brown, so they don't really figure in this debate, I suppose...).

Or the fact that life expectancy greater, on average, than our Septic cousins.

Or the excellent legal point brought up by thefrollickingmole. Legalistic problems being endemic in prohibiting best care to even the well insured.

Or the fact that we spend less of our GDP on healthcare than America does whilst living longer whilst it being illegal, generally, for drug companies and other money-grabbing cunts to push their products act us ad nauseum?

If you're going to use the 3-0 analogy, you should realise it's a game of two halves.

the a&e charge nurse said...

Quite OFMN - and look what happened to AC Milan in Instanbul.

TFC has conveniently overlooked the fact that Brits live longer than Yanks, have a far lower infant mortality rate yet up until fairly recently paid only HALF for health services compared to the % of GDP spent by Americans on their system.

Of course we get a few stats thrown in to bolster what is essentially just another bout of tedious libertarian rhetoric.

Let me give you an example of stats in action.
Suppose 2 patients in every 10,000 die from a heart attack - the number reduces to 1 if they all take a statin.
We could present this as 50% fewer will die from a heart attack, or the outcome is 'twice as good' for those on a statin.

Cue media headlines about 'miracle drug' saving half from a heart attack - the likes of TFS would no doubt be in his element after such an interpretation especially if the stats could be used to demonstrate how backward and statist the NHS is.

In reality the person who survives may only live an extra few months at a cost of hundreds of thousands to treat everybody else with a statin, a population that would not have suffered a heart attack anyway.
Then we have the risk of adverse side effects given that a large population is now required to take a drug for a long period of time.

To further bolster his polemic the TFS cites cancer stats. Yet he fails to point out that cancer accounts for over 200 different diseases so how are we to judge the crude sound bites he offers us?

Perhaps TFS would feel comfortable if Danny Hannon was put in charge of UK health services safe in the knowledge that our life expectancy, infant mortality and health costs would soon mirror those of the USA?

The Filthy Smoker said...

For fuck's sake, A & E, why must you always misrepresent what I say? I have never said that I prefer the US system to the NHS (or vice versa). I don't particularly give a shit how the US system works, let alone that of Singapore's or Sweden's. As far as I can see, we're stuck with the NHS, but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in hearing a debate about what's wrong and what's right about an institution which is, at the very least, highly inefficient.

Hannan attempted to have a debate and was called a "national disgrace" and a liar. This post set out to see if the points he raised were indeed lies. After looking at the facts (or "throwing in some stats" as you would say) I think, on the whole, he wasn't lying. You can bring up as much irrelevant shit as you like about statins, or bring up more relevant matters like life expectancy (the difference is negligible though, isn't it?), but seeing as how Hannan didn't mention these things, they weren't relevant to the question of whether he was lying. Do you see?

the a&e charge nurse said...

TFS for such an astute commentator your naivete is rather surprising - but lets start by giving Hannan his due - at least he is a man of conviction, that is to his credit.

Having said that there was no 'debate', as far as I could see. Hannan simply engaged in a form of mutual fawning, and back-slapping on an American right wing telly show - he played his audience like a fiddle and the neocon host lapped it up.
The Daily Mash offer their usual insightful take on the issue

Now maybe we are talking about different interviews since Daniel Hannan is knocking on the door of any right wing American TV station that will listen to him but I have just had another look at the interview with Glen Beck

The first thing to say is how little of substance Hannan actually contributes - the context to the discussion seems to be a profound anxiety amongst the American right about the implications of a universal health system.
Needless to say America is just about the only developed country in the world not offer universal provision.

So what are Hannon's substantive points?
Well one rather bizarre claim is that NHS is a dud concept because it emerged after a period of war - I must admit the logic of this claim simply fails me.

He then LIES about patients being 'sent to the back of the queue' - sure there are waits, but these are prioritised, access to NHS services is generally pretty good if you have a serious problem.
If we take A&E as an example (since Hannan brings it up) 98% of NHS patients are seen, treated and either admitted or discharged within 4 hours while in the States waits for ER services, that's just the wait mind can literally run into days, providing the patient doesn't drop dead in the waiting room first

Hannon also LIES about the ability of patients to top up NHS care

But I can see we are being reduced to a petty tit-for-tat type of exchange, so I would ask any sensible person to look at Hannnan's performance again, especially the context in which it takes place so that they can draw their own conclusion.

Is Hannan a guy that wishes to 'debate' the debate the issues, or even understands them
Or is he somebody pushing a love of marketisation with health being treated in exactly the same way as any other commodity?

Anonymous said...

What a refreshing article, much enjoyed it, thank you flithy smoker.

the a&e charge nurse said...

Since TFS starts his Hannan love-in with cancer stats here is an interesting item for more discerning readers

Is Hannan lying or is it plain old ignorance?

the a&e charge nurse said...

A few more stats for the Hannan lovers

See last part of item, especially the bit about health spending per head
US $7,290
UK $2,992.

I didn't hear Hannan trumpeting these facts to his mates on the the neocon TV network.

lost_nurse said...

Well said, A+E C/N.

Hannan's self-aggrandising hardly made for an informed debate.

the a&e charge nurse said...

Hey lost_nurse, where the hell have you been hiding?

lost_nurse said...

where the hell have you been hiding?

In the sluice, disguised as a linen skip.

Nah, just been busy!

Hope all well with you. :)

the a&e charge nurse said...

The sluice, eh?

Thank god for that ........ for a short while I was worried you might have defected to the 'management'

lost_nurse said...

I was worried you might have defected to the 'management'

ha ha - no chance.

I know my place.