snowychap Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 (edited) So does she believe that they have caught everyone? Having just had a quick scout through her column, I don't think she even implies this. She questions why the narrative has been led by the five billion figure, doesn't she? And where that then leads (along the same lines as most of the other narratives about social security or other public services - that it's all a racket that the filthy plebs are using to screw what they can out of it)? What she has said was that the figure they come up with is saying that if the NHS lies in the middle of the whole lot then fraud would be £x, the fraud that we uncover is £y (a fraction of £x). Edited March 26, 2014 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 (edited) but surely it's worth investigating How do they come across the £229 million of fraud? By people waltzing in off the street and handing themselves in due to guilt? Edited March 26, 2014 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 (edited) What I am suggesting is investigate the level of the fraud, what do they think it could be compared to the other nations and start from there. And it isn't plebs, trying to defraud is it. It'll be people working within the NHS won't it? Edited March 26, 2014 by colhint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 (edited) Set some imaginary 'target' and work backwards? The point is fair enough if it is that one is always aware of the possibility that fraud exists, that this is investigated wherever necessary and dealt with but it seems as though you're going down the Jeremy Hunt, IDS, Lord Fraud, &c. (well most of this and possibly other governments) route of computing some sort of figure and engineering reality to fit that computation (nine out of one hundred people have a stutter* - so, as we've only found a couple of stutterers amongst the one hundred, some of the others are obviously covering their stutter up). *This is a fictitious statistic invented solely as an aid to explanation. Edited March 26, 2014 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 ...She then said that the NHS is free at point of use, so there aren't as many transactions. What a complete load of cobblers. £100bn and few transaction... What she actually said was There simply aren't as many transactions within it, as there are in an insurance-based system, for fraud to creep into. Isn't it obviously, self-evidently true that if on top of treatment you have a system of charging individuals or their insurance companies for each instance or course of treatment, there are more transactions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 (edited) Set some imaginary 'target' and work backwards? The point is fair enough if it is that one is always aware of the possibility that fraud exists, that this is investigated wherever necessary and dealt with but it seems as though you're going down the Jeremy Hunt, IDS, Lord Fraud, &c. (well most of this and possibly other governments) route of computing some sort of figure and engineering reality to fit that computation (nine out of one hundred people have a stutter* - so, as we've only found a couple of stutterers amongst the one hundred, some of the others are obviously covering their stutter up). *This is a fictitious statistic invented solely as an aid to explanation. Or they could read the report and decide, we are so much better than the other countries we don't need to do anything or decide maybe there is something in this and investigate. If they decide the former I believe they are being naive. And they could also look at the stutterers and say we have only a couple, and ask, if the US, Holland, France, Belgium and NZ are all considerably higher, are we certain our figures are correct Edited March 26, 2014 by colhint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 ...She then said that the NHS is free at point of use, so there aren't as many transactions. What a complete load of cobblers. £100bn and few transaction... What she actually said was There simply aren't as many transactions within it, as there are in an insurance-based system, for fraud to creep into. Isn't it obviously, self-evidently true that if on top of treatment you have a system of charging individuals or their insurance companies for each instance or course of treatment, there are more transactions? Not really true though Peter. For a start Isn't the NHS much bigger than any insurance based treatment, so whilst there is an easier audit trail in insurance based, the sheer volume of transactions in the NHS would be larger than anyone else. Now I have looked at the report, ( i can't bloody find it at the minute) But If you look at the US which has more insurance based claims than anyone I would think. They had a much higher rate of fraud than us. That leads me to believe that when there is clear audit trail, there is fraud. I cannot believe where there is no audit trail, it would be considerably better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 ...She then said that the NHS is free at point of use, so there aren't as many transactions. What a complete load of cobblers. £100bn and few transaction... What she actually said was There simply aren't as many transactions within it, as there are in an insurance-based system, for fraud to creep into. Isn't it obviously, self-evidently true that if on top of treatment you have a system of charging individuals or their insurance companies for each instance or course of treatment, there are more transactions? Not really true though Peter. For a start Isn't the NHS much bigger than any insurance based treatment, so whilst there is an easier audit trail in insurance based, the sheer volume of transactions in the NHS would be larger than anyone else. Now I have looked at the report, ( i can't bloody find it at the minute) But If you look at the US which has more insurance based claims than anyone I would think. They had a much higher rate of fraud than us. That leads me to believe that when there is clear audit trail, there is fraud. I cannot believe where there is no audit trail, it would be considerably better But her point was first that there are more transactions in an insurance-based system compared to one free at the point of use (uncontroversial, I guess?) and second that a larger number of transactions means a larger number of opportunities for fraud. Wouldn't anyone doing a risk analysis of any system consider that the more transactions, the more potential opportunities for fraud? Whether they manage to put in place effective controls is a different and distinct question. My point is simply that what she said is pretty obviously true, and your quote misrepresents the point she makes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Maybe I didn't phrase it correctly. Whilst it maybe there are more transactions per patient in Insurance based health care the NHS is so much bigger than any individual Insurance company/ healthcare. Overall there will be more transactions in the NHS than any single insurance one. Besides, it depends what you mean by a transaction. I would call all procurement a transaction. and that dwarfs anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Forgot those clowns were having their debate tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Forgot those clowns were having their debate tonight. did either political baldie win a comb? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 This is what it's about, then. A marketing ploy by a firm of bloated accountants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 No reference or link as I've only just heard it on the radio news - but it appears the tory government is about to nationalise the provision of milk to schools ! It's to control the prices they are currently being charged by others for this service apparently. I just thought it really interesting that the tories are re nationalising of all things, school milk for children, when, as we all know it was Thatcher that originally ate babies. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 27, 2014 Author Moderator Share Posted March 27, 2014 School milk wasn't nationalised as I remember. The Co-Op milkman used to deliver ours (sadly I was milk monitor).What school milk btw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 (edited) According to the yellow, weasel party, it's something about having a nationally agreed price with all suppliers. Edited March 27, 2014 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 27, 2014 Author Moderator Share Posted March 27, 2014 According to the yellow, weasel party, it's something about having a nationally agreed price with all suppliers.Govt = Tesco thenBut again, what school milk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Milk monitor to moderator, very fitting 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 (edited) That Wolfson is a tit. What you get from someone who went to Radley, I suppose. Edit: I am a little concerned that QT has two Conservative party representatives on it, though. Screws with my argument about its balance in the other thread. Edited March 27, 2014 by snowychap 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Did Greening really just say to Dimbleby (in reponse to his question about the number of house builds in 2007) that there were virtually no houses built in 2007? I may have been away with the fairies at that moment so completely misheard her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Oh FFS, that Christian nutjob just made me like Mick Hucknall for a nanosecond. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts