Health funding concerns raised by City of York Council chiefs (From York Press)

These lot never fail to amaze me with their brass neck.

Having sat and said precisely sweet fanny ann about massive underfunding of public health from 1997 to 2010 by the Labour government, they receive a 10% increase from the coalition and are quick to release a press release claiming theyre getting a raw deal.

These lot have lost all credibility with the public

Why should the council be in charge of improving peoples health? If the council would like to give me my £33 I will look after myself and improve my own health thank you.

atorycouncil2014 wrote:
These lot never fail to amaze me with their brass neck.

Having sat and said precisely sweet fanny ann about massive underfunding of public health from 1997 to 2010 by the Labour government, they receive a 10% increase from the coalition and are quick to release a press release claiming theyre getting a raw deal.

These lot have lost all credibility with the public

Tired and worn out soap boxes aside, calculations of the cost of providing public health services have been found to contain “significant errors” that will lead to councils being underfunded for the role, according to the Association of Directors of Public Health.

When the Department of Health asked PCTs to calculate how much they had been spending on public health in order to transfer the money to councils, PCTs had an incentive to underestimate the totals in order to keep as much of their budget as possible when they became clinical commissioning groups.

Perhaps 'atorycouncil014" can explain why £3 billion has been clawed by the treasury from the Health despite , Cameron's assertion that the budget would be ring fenced. As the saying goes, a small amount of knowledge can mislead people into thinking that they are more expert than they really are!

perplexed wrote:

atorycouncil2014 wrote:
These lot never fail to amaze me with their brass neck.

Having sat and said precisely sweet fanny ann about massive underfunding of public health from 1997 to 2010 by the Labour government, they receive a 10% increase from the coalition and are quick to release a press release claiming theyre getting a raw deal.

These lot have lost all credibility with the public

Tired and worn out soap boxes aside, calculations of the cost of providing public health services have been found to contain “significant errors” that will lead to councils being underfunded for the role, according to the Association of Directors of Public Health.

When the Department of Health asked PCTs to calculate how much they had been spending on public health in order to transfer the money to councils, PCTs had an incentive to underestimate the totals in order to keep as much of their budget as possible when they became clinical commissioning groups.

Perhaps 'atorycouncil014&quo
t; can explain why £3 billion has been clawed by the treasury from the Health despite , Cameron's assertion that the budget would be ring fenced. As the saying goes, a small amount of knowledge can mislead people into thinking that they are more expert than they really are!

If you could try again with language that makes sense I'll give it a go!

atorycouncil2014 wrote:

perplexed wrote:

atorycouncil2014 wrote:
These lot never fail to amaze me with their brass neck.

Having sat and said precisely sweet fanny ann about massive underfunding of public health from 1997 to 2010 by the Labour government, they receive a 10% increase from the coalition and are quick to release a press release claiming theyre getting a raw deal.

These lot have lost all credibility with the public

Tired and worn out soap boxes aside, calculations of the cost of providing public health services have been found to contain “significant errors” that will lead to councils being underfunded for the role, according to the Association of Directors of Public Health.

When the Department of Health asked PCTs to calculate how much they had been spending on public health in order to transfer the money to councils, PCTs had an incentive to underestimate the totals in order to keep as much of their budget as possible when they became clinical commissioning groups.

Perhaps 'atorycouncil014&amp
;quo
t; can explain why £3 billion has been clawed by the treasury from the Health despite , Cameron's assertion that the budget would be ring fenced. As the saying goes, a small amount of knowledge can mislead people into thinking that they are more expert than they really are!

If you could try again with language that makes sense I'll give it a go!

Let us see if we can make it really simple for you.

The funding shortfall for public health has been on the cards for many months, thanks to the 'errors ' in formula adopted by the Government. This was flagged up in October 2012 by the Association of Directors of Public Health (who I suspect know a lot more about this than you or I).

As far as the £3 billion is concerned , and which is the subject of a parliamentary investigation , if Cameron had stuck to his promise (for what it worth) then there would not necessarily have to be a shortfall in public health funding or even NYYPCT finances.

Your rather crude and naive attempt to blame the approximately 20% shortfall for public heath duties on CYC is just ill informed nonsense and once agin rather sad! If you must offer us the benefit of you 'considerable ' wisdom get your facts right and wait a year and then comment of how CYC is doing !

Coun Tracey Simpson-Laing, cabinet member for health, housing and adult social services, said: ......“Even after another ten per cent rise in 2014/15, we will still only have about 82.5 per cent of the funding we need and should have, which leaves us with a shortfall of about £1.5 million a year.”

Isn't this approximately the sum that the council is planning to spend on furniture in their new pleasure palace?
If only they could bring themselves to slum it with the desks and chairs from the old buildings, that would cover the shortfall for one year at least.
I'm sure others have suggestions for subsequent years.