Banker Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 21 minutes ago, CallMeCurious said: See that now they can't staff the new nursing home they are looking for an extra £1.5m a year. Now presumably there would have been a budget to staff it at some point but now the private sector are presumably tendering for it, it will cost them an extra £1.5m per year to staff it. So either the budget was inadequate, the NHS staff were woefully underpaid or the private firms are raking in an extra £28k a week. Wonder if it's in this years or next years budget? Or are we now on £48.5 million overspend this year? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-68139826 I see the rules changed during the planning phase... but they didn't adjust the budget presumably? Or another way, an extra £26k annually per bed. Well a private operator can charge £1000+ PW whereas Manx care are providing a lot of beds at 0 contribution from residents except for loss of any pension they have so easier to make it work , plus they’re not paying pensions, NHS rates etc. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cissolt Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 2 hours ago, Banker said: Well a private operator can charge £1000+ PW whereas Manx care are providing a lot of beds at 0 contribution from residents except for loss of any pension they have so easier to make it work , plus they’re not paying pensions, NHS rates etc. 1.5 million a year seems good value compared to private providers. Any idea how much Salisbury Street is costing us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 (edited) 16 minutes ago, cissolt said: 1.5 million a year seems good value compared to private providers. Any idea how much Salisbury Street is costing us? No, not sure if details are public of contracts. Last news I could find https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/politics/paying-ps79m-for-new-care-home-was-the-right-decision-240517 Edited January 31 by Banker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred the shred Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 If private providers can make money out of running a residential home why can’t the Government. They would be open to residents who pay and surely those residents who are funded by the Government are not costing any more than if they were placed elsewhere. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cissolt Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 6 hours ago, Banker said: No, not sure if details are public of contracts. Last news I could find https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/politics/paying-ps79m-for-new-care-home-was-the-right-decision-240517 I had forgotten about this chap! £812 per week x 60 beds at a minimum. So £2.5 million at least based on Salisbury figures. It is interesting that he stated govt paid too much and is also paying twice for the same beds. Seems obvious that DHSC are incapable of finding overspends like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sentience Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 In fear of repeating myself, cos frankly I am 🙄!! Why is the term 'over budget' always used, when in most cases it really is a genuine case of 'underfunding'? While they (IOMG) acknowledge (in principle) that we have an ever aging population, living longer because of fairly recent amazing pharmaceutical discoveries, this FACT is not really being used as part of the equation to determine how realistically to fund the NHS now and for the future. AND, it happens year after year after year ad infinitum!! Come on IOMG, get your priorities in the right order of REAL importance! 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 2 hours ago, Sentience said: In fear of repeating myself, cos frankly I am 🙄!! Why is the term 'over budget' always used, when in most cases it really is a genuine case of 'underfunding'? While they (IOMG) acknowledge (in principle) that we have an ever aging population, living longer because of fairly recent amazing pharmaceutical discoveries, this FACT is not really being used as part of the equation to determine how realistically to fund the NHS now and for the future. AND, it happens year after year after year ad infinitum!! Come on IOMG, get your priorities in the right order of REAL importance! Cope the CEO made a relevant statement recently when asked about the over spend and she said that based on the formula set out in the report which set up Manx Care and approved by Tynwald they should have had c£25m more funding which would have meant they were under budget. However the budget recommendations have not been followed so it’s always going to be over budget unless they start cutting even more services. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 2 hours ago, Sentience said: In fear of repeating myself, cos frankly I am 🙄!! Why is the term 'over budget' always used, when in most cases it really is a genuine case of 'underfunding'? While they (IOMG) acknowledge (in principle) that we have an ever aging population, living longer because of fairly recent amazing pharmaceutical discoveries, this FACT is not really being used as part of the equation to determine how realistically to fund the NHS now and for the future. AND, it happens year after year after year ad infinitum!! Come on IOMG, get your priorities in the right order of REAL importance! Are we still living longer on average, particularly since Covid? Is this still a fact? I'm not so sure, and I certainly don't see it going forward with the proportion of obesity and unhealthy lives all around us. As for underfunding/over budget, I think government will always lean towards decribing any shortfall as the latter because costs will inevitably increase to match a larger budget allocation and promptly become over budget once more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sentience Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 Ok, in general, apart from frankly unexpected things like Covid, life expectancy through the dim & distance past has improved exponentially with the new pharmas. So, why doesn't IOMG make this unassailable knowledge part of the ingredients in deciding how to fund our health care. They (iomg) ask us, the public the question, "how can we do this?" That was what we elected YOU to do! Forget the fanciful stuff you can put your name on a brass plaque for and.....find a way! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 24 minutes ago, Sentience said: Ok, in general, apart from frankly unexpected things like Covid, life expectancy through the dim & distance past has improved exponentially with the new pharmas. So, why doesn't IOMG make this unassailable knowledge part of the ingredients in deciding how to fund our health care. They (iomg) ask us, the public the question, "how can we do this?" That was what we elected YOU to do! Forget the fanciful stuff you can put your name on a brass plaque for and.....find a way! because to fund our extended life spans you have to do 2 things, raise the retirement age ( done by shitting on women more than the men for a change ) and secondly raise taxes to fund it , we are never going to tax highly enough to fund what is required as it is probably an unbalanceable equation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc.fixit Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 Not tax highly, just tax appropriately i.e. tax simply, get rid of loopholes, no tax cap and ensure the tax the corporations should pay is actually paid. Get rid of road excise licence and put the tax on fuel...............simples...lol. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 13 hours ago, Sentience said: Ok, in general, apart from frankly unexpected things like Covid, life expectancy through the dim & distance past has improved exponentially with the new pharmas. So, why doesn't IOMG make this unassailable knowledge part of the ingredients in deciding how to fund our health care. They (iomg) ask us, the public the question, "how can we do this?" That was what we elected YOU to do! Forget the fanciful stuff you can put your name on a brass plaque for and.....find a way! Of course any government can decide to fund healthcare to cover everything which is what some of the Nordic countries have but the cost is enormous and can only be funded by enormous taxes which is how it’s funded.in Finland average tax take is 43.5% on workers, 42% Norway,47% Denmark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc.fixit Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 But maybe salaries are higher there.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 1 minute ago, doc.fixit said: But maybe salaries are higher there.? and utilities and house prices are cheaper ?? there don't seem to be many homeless and beggars in nordic countries, too bloody cold i guess. and i also guess it depends on what the state provides for that tax compared to us, maybe they don't have rates or NI or all the other extra costs we get on top of our tax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 (edited) 17 minutes ago, doc.fixit said: But maybe salaries are higher there.? A lot higher but of course you also pay a lot more tax!! Denmark average salary £68k but nearly 50% goes in taxes but benefits, healthcare, pensions are better. So more tax you pay the better the benefits generally. Average house cost c£300k. Edited February 2 by Banker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.